BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Bournemouth Borough Council Bill [ Lords]

Lords amendments considered and agreed to.

Manchester City Council Bill [ Lords]

Lords amendments considered and agreed to.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked-

Highlands and Islands Economy

Charles Kennedy: What assessment he has made of the prospects for the economy of the highlands and islands in the next two years; and if he will make a statement.

Ann McKechin: Good morning, Mr. Speaker.
	Real help provided by the UK Government since the start of the recession will ensure economic recovery is locked in and will allow the highlands and islands economy to prosper.

Charles Kennedy: Would the Minister agree that it is highly ironic that at a time when the Government-with everyone's support-are seeking through their commitment to offshore wind development, for example, to encourage major inward investment in manufacturing in the highland economy from firms such as KBR at Nigg, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs' approach to small and medium-sized businesses is driving the likes of Highland Airways, Gaeltec on Skye and others to the wall with the result that the savings accruing to the public purse are more than wiped out by the additional costs of unemployment and all the other benefits that will have to be paid?

Ann McKechin: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that the Inland Revenue has not been helpful to Scottish businesses given that its own business payment support service has helped more than 18,000 firms in Scotland, with deferred payments of tax totalling more than £300 million. That, I think, is one of the "real help" ways in which we have assisted small businesses. The package announced in this year's Budget will give £2.5 billion to small businesses and includes a doubling of their investment allowances. We have a good track record in helping businesses and especially in helping growth in new jobs from which the highlands and islands, in particular, will benefit.

Adam Ingram: When I was a Northern Ireland Minister, I organised an 11-city tour of the United States to try to bring jobs and inward investment to Northern Ireland. Nationalists were involved in those visits, but they did not try to sell the message of trying to take Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom. Might I suggest to my hon. Friend that she should draw that to the attention of those separatist Scottish National party Ministers from the Scottish Parliament, who are peddling separatism in the United States rather than trying to bring jobs to Scotland?

Ann McKechin: Yet again, my right hon. Friend gets to the heart of the matter. Tartan week should be a showcase for increasing our exports to the USA and increasing tourism. Instead, the SNP has characterised it by its own obsession with independence and its gripes, rather than promoting Scotland.

Angus MacNeil: The highlands and islands economy has indeed been damaged by Labour's many fuel tax hikes. The increased tax on cider has been scrapped; can we have the same again for fuel in the Hebrides, please? HMRC's actions have pushed Highland Airways to the wall. As a result, people in Lewis and Harris are now having to wait until late afternoon before they get their newspapers. What will the Labour Government do to make amends for their actions?

Ann McKechin: The hon. Gentleman should look at the facts of the case. Sadly, Highland Airways had substantial trading difficulties and many more debts beyond that owing to HMRC. Unfortunately, a takeover was not possible at the last moment and the company went into liquidation, but I understand that the services to the Western Isles are being maintained by Loganair and other services are also being taken account of. We are working hard to help the employees of Highland Airways find new work under the PACE-partnership action for continuing employment-scheme. That is the best and most practical way in which we can help companies and businesses suffering from the recession.

Alistair Carmichael: The Minister's answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr. Kennedy) shows just how out of touch she and her ministerial colleagues have become. In the last two years, a quarter of corporate insolvencies in Scotland have been enforced by HMRC. Literally thousands of Scots have lost their jobs because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been unable to translate his good intentions on managing HMRC into hard, effective action. Does not that embarrass the Minister even slightly?

Ann McKechin: The hon. Gentleman should remember that output in the highlands and islands has risen by 75 per cent. since the Labour Government were elected in 1997, and there are 220,000 more jobs in Scotland since we were elected in 1997. Through our real help to businesses, including the business support scheme, which I again point out has benefited more than 18,000 small businesses in Scotland, we have helped to keep people on the road and to get Scotland into recovery.

Alistair Carmichael: The Minister compares the number of jobs now with the number in 1997, but she seems to ignore the fact that, last year alone, 65,000 Scots lost their jobs as a result of this Government's policies. The Government now turn around and offer us empty promises of 100,000 new jobs. They have always taken Scotland for granted; now they are just taking the mickey.

Ann McKechin: It is interesting to note that the unemployment rates in the hon. Gentleman's constituency are among the lowest in the United Kingdom. That is because of Labour policies, which are creating jobs and supporting people through the recession. The future jobs fund has benefited more than 10,500 people in Scotland by helping them and keeping them close to the job market. It is because of the UK's policies, taking the tough decisions that the Liberal Democrats would care to ignore, that we have got through this recession much quicker than they would have.

Devolution

Anne McIntosh: When he last met the Advocate-General to discuss devolution issues.

Ann McKechin: Both the Secretary of State and I have regular discussions with the Advocate-General on a variety of issues.

Anne McIntosh: I am most grateful for that very full reply. How does the hon. Lady envisage the situation being resolved if there is a difference in the way in which the Flood and Water Management Bill, for example, once it is adopted, is interpreted in Scotland as opposed to its interpretation in England?

Ann McKechin: The hon. Lady might be aware that there was recently a case in the Supreme Court regarding the competency of the legislation of the Scottish Parliament. I think that would provide valuable guidance. At the end of the day, when we have difficulties in terms of our relationship with the Scottish Government, we have very detailed procedures with joint ministerial committees in which we can work together to find solutions to problems rather than necessarily considering court action. The fact that the Advocate-General has not needed to take one single case to the Supreme Court since devolution is a symbol of its success.

Jim Sheridan: During her discussions with the Advocate-General, will the Minister raise the devolved issue of transport? Will she also issue guidelines for visitors coming to either Edinburgh or Aberdeen to make it clear that safety is important, particularly when people are travelling in open-decked buses?

Ann McKechin: My hon. Friend might be referring to the shadow Secretary of State's unfortunate experience yesterday when his campaign got derailed on day one by inanimate objects. However, I certainly take my hon. Friend's points on board.

Ben Wallace: One of the Advocate-General's roles is to ensure that the relationship between the Scotland Office and the Scottish Executive works within the devolution settlement. It is clear that when it came to the release of al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, both the victims and the Scottish Executive were the last to be consulted. What steps has the Minister put in place to ensure that that does not happen again? Will she take this final opportunity to condemn the early release of that bomber, who is alive and well seven months later?

Ann McKechin: The Calman commission recommended a number of ways in which we could improve intergovernmental relationships, and we are very keen to take them forward. It is regrettable that the Scottish Government have declined to accept those recommendations, which have been supported by the majority in the Scottish Parliament. I note the hon. Gentleman's concerns, which I share, regarding the release of Mr. al-Megrahi, but at the end of the day that was a decision solely for the Scottish Government.

Disabled Children (Benefits)

Tom Clarke: When he last discussed with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions the benefits provided for disabled children and their families in Scotland.

Jim Murphy: Good morning, Mr. Speaker.
	The Government are totally committed to supporting disabled children and their families. I discuss these matters and welfare reform with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

Tom Clarke: Does my right hon. Friend recall that one of the most shameful episodes in the history of social services in Scotland was when the Scottish Government accepted £34 million that was allocated for disabled children and their families and used it to give to local councils to keep council tax steady? Will he continue to consult with colleagues so that never again can we have such a distortion of the Barnett formula, and never again can we trust those who claim to speak for Scotland and attack the most vulnerable?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.

Jim Murphy: Scottish National party Members are shouting at my right hon. Friend, but over many years he has established an impeccable record among others across the House through his campaigning for families with disabled children. His criticism is therefore all the more valid. It is a matter of cross-party consensus that we should all try and do as much as we can to support families with disabled children. It is pretty shameful that the £34 million that was meant to go towards supporting the NHS in helping disabled children in Scotland went into a big black hole created by the SNP.

Robert Smith: The Secretary of State will realise that this has been an excessively cold winter in Scotland, and that one of the challenges for people with disabilities is their need for extra heating in their homes. In his discussions with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, has he therefore pressed the case for extending the winter fuel payment to people with disability and on disability benefits?

Jim Murphy: We continue to keep all these things under review. Last year we made some important changes to winter fuel payments for pensioners across Scotland, almost trebling the amounts involved, and we have announced further changes in support of families with disabled children. The Government have announced that people with severe visual impairment will become entitled to the higher-rate mobility component of disability living allowance from April next year. That is after a campaign supported by Members of Parliament of all parties and the Royal National Institute of Blind People. We continue to look for other ways to support families with disabled children.

Calman Commission

Mark Lazarowicz: What recent progress he has made in implementing the recommendations of the Calman commission.

Jim Murphy: We remain committed to taking forward the proposals outlined in our White Paper on Calman. We will bring forward a Bill early in the next Session of Parliament to implement these recommendations.

Mark Lazarowicz: The Calman commission proposals to make the Scottish Parliament more responsible for its financial decision making offer the possibilities of improving democratic accountability in Scotland and also strengthening the Union. Will my right hon. Friend commit himself to introducing the proposals on financial accountability as part of that package?

Jim Murphy: The Scottish Parliament is one of the great democratic innovations and constitutional changes of recent decades, but the Government and the Calman commission believe that there is an in-built weakness in its architecture, in that it is responsible for spending money but not for raising enough of it. The envisaged radical reforms will give it much more power, and in future the ultimate decision about how much money the Scottish Parliament and Government will spend will be for the Scottish Parliament, which will have to make an annual decision on tax rates in Scotland. That is a fair, sustainable and radical approach, and it is an important part of having a stronger Scotland inside a proud United Kingdom.

Eleanor Laing: Although some form of constitutional reform is certainly necessary, does the Secretary of State agree that the best future for all the people of Scotland is to ensure that the country is not an isolated, small entity but part of a strong and prosperous United Kingdom?

Jim Murphy: I do not agree with the hon. Lady on all matters, of course, but she is right on this one. All of us who love Scotland and are patriotic about our country know that it is a fantastic place to live and bring up a family, and that it has a phenomenal history. However, it is part of our future and destiny to ensure that a proud Scotland remains an equal part of the United Kingdom. That is not just my view, but the view of the majority of people all across Scotland.

Pete Wishart: The Secretary of State is absolutely right that there is a commonality of purpose between Labour and Conservatives-they both want to bring cuts to Scotland. We were promised action on the Calman proposals back in the Queen's Speech in November, but since then we have heard nothing, zilch, not a peep. Is it not the case that the Government have no intention of bringing forward his proposals, and that they would prefer to introduce cuts rather than Calman to Scotland?

Jim Murphy: The hon. Gentleman makes his point with his characteristically good manners and great sense of humour. This is the latest attempt on this matter by a political party, the SNP, that no one in Scotland takes seriously. It is using desperate tactics, but the only thing that Scotland would get by voting SNP in the general election would be a Tory Government. That is because the SNP brought Mrs. Thatcher to power and is desperate to remove this Labour Government as well. The moment that the party decided to prop up a Tory Government was the moment that it surrendered the right to speak for Scotland.

Future Jobs Fund

Anne Begg: How much future jobs fund money has been spent in (a) Scotland and (b) Aberdeen.

Jim Murphy: The future jobs fund is making a significant impact in Scotland, and more than 10,500 jobs have been funded, including in Aberdeen.

Anne Begg: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this investment in jobs and the announcement today that Labour will introduce another 100,000 skilled jobs in Scotland will be the thing that makes a difference to my constituents in Aberdeen? It will make sure that Aberdeen moves from being the oil and gas capital of Europe to being the energy capital of Europe. Some of those new jobs will be green jobs, but they will be skilled jobs.

Jim Murphy: My hon. Friend is right. Over recent decades, Aberdeen has been a remarkable European and global centre for the oil and gas industry, but although oil and gas have still some years to run they will not last for ever, so this is an enormous opportunity for Aberdeen, and the north-east of Scotland in particular, to have a permanent centre of European excellence in renewable energy that can bring tens of thousands of jobs to Scotland, especially in my hon. Friend's Aberdeen constituency and the north-east of the country.

Total Block Grant

Lindsay Roy: What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the adequacy of the total block grant to the Scottish Executive for 2010-11.

Jim Murphy: I have regular discussions with the Chancellor on a range of issues. The allocated Scottish Government budget for 2010-11 is the highest ever-more than double that available to Donald Dewar in the first year of devolution.

Lindsay Roy: I thank the Secretary of State for the clarity of his response. Can he confirm that the UK Government are still offering a package of financial support to the Scottish Government in relation to the Forth crossing?

Jim Murphy: Throughout my time as Secretary of State, I have tried to take a reasonable approach to the big issues facing Scotland. Of course, that has often not been responded to by the Scottish National party, but in an attempt to be reasonable, and trying to set aside party political divisions on those big issues, the UK Government offered an unparalleled and unprecedented flexibility package to help the Scottish Government build a Forth road bridge. Unfortunately, they rebuffed it; they are stuck in an old ideology, which means that, as we speak, the bridge is no closer.

Stewart Hosie: The Scottish Secretary has done nothing to stop the real-terms cuts to the Scottish budget this year, part of a package of cuts that will be deeper and tougher than Margaret Thatcher's. Is he proud of his Thatcherite legacy and what will he say to the thousands of Scottish public sector workers who will lose their jobs as a result of British Labour party cuts?

Jim Murphy: I thought the hon. Gentleman was getting up to thank the Labour Government for the tax credits on innovation in the games industry in Dundee, but he is silent. He cannot bring himself to support his constituents and his city.
	I am proud of what we have achieved over the past 12 years, and I thank the people of Scotland, because together we have made Scotland a fairer, more confident place. The last thing we need is a vote for the SNP, to bring in the Tory party by the back door.

Economic Inactivity

Brian H Donohoe: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the level of economic inactivity in Scotland.

Ann McKechin: rose- [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the Minister replies, there are far too many private conversations-some of them indulged in by very senior Members of the House, who I am sure know better. It is not fair to Members and it is not fair to the people of Scotland.

Ann McKechin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
	The Secretary of State for Scotland has regular discussions with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about the level of economic inactivity in Scotland.

Brian H Donohoe: I thank the Minister for that answer. Does she agree with me? In Scotland, Labour is working!

Ann McKechin: My hon. Friend, as always, is short, succinct and to the point. He is absolutely accurate. We are determined not to repeat the errors of the 1980s and 1990s recession. That is why we are helping young people in particular to get back into work. That is why we are growing jobs with our green investment bank. That is why we are helping new industries and renewable industries in the video games industry and in the life sciences. It is by having a managed industrial policy that we will grow our way into recovery.

David Mundell: The Minister will know that 665,000 working-age people in Scotland are economically inactive. In the past three months, that figure has risen by 21,000. In the past year, Labour has wiped £4.8 billion off the value of the Scottish economy. Since 1997, Scotland's share of the national debt has more than doubled, and almost 150,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost. Those are facts; there is little that the Minister and the Secretary of State can do about them now, but will she take this last opportunity at the Dispatch Box to apologise to the people of Scotland?

Ann McKechin: Well, I will tell the hon. Gentleman what we certainly will not do. We will not halt recovery in its tracks by cutting public investment now and squeezing off our recovery. He can be sure that the Labour Government are determined to ensure that the recovery works.

David Mundell: Like most people, but unlike Labour Members, I am interested in talking about the present-2010. Labour's last manifesto said:
	"2010: Full employment in every region and nation".
	The number of people who have been on the dole in Scotland for more than one year has in fact gone up by 122 per cent. in the past 12 months, yet the Minister and the Secretary of State still want to introduce a tax on jobs that will kill recovery. If she thinks that that is a good idea, is it not she and the Secretary of State who have been misled, not leading Scottish business figures?

Ann McKechin: The hon. Gentleman forgets that since 1997 there are 220,000 more Scots in employment, courtesy of a Labour Government. We are determined to continue the recovery, which is why the national insurance increase will not occur until next year, at which point all predictions show that we will have a strong and sustainable recovery. Under this Government, when we have increased national insurance, jobs have continued to rise.

Employment

Ian Davidson: What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on levels of employment in Scotland.

Jim Murphy: I have regular discussions with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about employment in Scotland. Despite the severity of the recent recession, there are almost 250,000 more Scots working today than there were in 1997.

Ian Davidson: Has the Secretary of State been discussing the shipbuilding industry with his ministerial colleagues? In particular, has he been discussing the fact that Scotland faces the choice of the Type 45 with Labour or the P45 with the separatists? Has he been discussing the fact that the aircraft carriers are threatened by the Tories and would be sunk by the separatists, but are safe with Labour?

Jim Murphy: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He and others are fantastic champions of shipbuilding in Scotland. He makes a very clear point. The Scottish Conservatives are in favour of industry-destroying cuts, creating elitism and sinking shipyards-we have an unchanged Scottish Conservative party. The last thing that Scotland wants to do is to go back to the old divisions of the 1980s under the Tory party.  [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must have some quiet. I am sure that the House will want to hear Sir Nicholas Winterton.

Nicholas Winterton: Speaking in this House as a Conservative and Unionist, may I ask whether the Secretary of State agrees that Scotland's part of the Union has been very beneficial to Scotland, not least in respect of employment?

Jim Murphy: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman endorses some of what we have been doing over the past decade. Compared with 12 years ago, there are almost 250,000 more people in work in Scotland today, despite the recession. Most people in Scotland are passionate patriots and most Scots are not nationalists. That is why the longer the SNP is in power in Edinburgh, the smaller the support for breaking up Britain becomes.

Immigration Removal Centres (Contraband)

Andrew Pelling: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on levels of contraband in immigration removal centres in Scotland.

Ann McKechin: The Secretary of State has had no recent meetings to discuss levels of contraband in the immigration removal centre in Scotland.

Andrew Pelling: Given that contraband is being sent into Her Majesty's prison in Edinburgh by the use of crossbows, what is the danger of that happening in the immigration centre? Why do Scottish people use crossbows rather than English longbows?

Ann McKechin: The management of prisons in Scotland is, of course, a matter for the Scottish Government's Ministry of Justice. We have policies and procedures in place to prevent contraband from coming into removal centres, but we would not comment on the details because that might compromise the safety of the centre.

Economy

John Barrett: What his most recent assessment is of the state of the economy in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

Ann McKechin: Official data showing Scotland's gross domestic product for the end of last year have not yet been published by the Scottish Government, but most indications suggest that Scotland emerged from recession in the fourth quarter of 2009, although the recovery is fragile. The Government are committed to doing all that is necessary to help to drive recovery in the Scottish economy.

John Barrett: The Minister and the Secretary of State will be aware that, in the past two years, 466 Scottish companies have been shut down by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs for not paying their bills on time. Currently, many solvent companies in Scotland are being pushed towards liquidation because of HMRC's actions. Will they have a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to get him to take the heat off those solvent companies, so that they can continue to trade and pay their bills?

Ann McKechin: As I said earlier, the Inland Revenue already has a business support package, which we introduced last year, to defer tax payments. More than 18,000 Scottish businesses have benefited and more than £300 million of tax has already been deferred. It is, however, important that HMRC is operationally independent, and its job is to protect the interests of the UK taxpayer.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked-

Engagements

Sandra Osborne: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 7 April.

Gordon Brown: I am sure the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the two British servicemen who have lost their lives in Afghanistan in the past week: from 1st Battalion Coldstream Guards, Guardsman Michael Sweeney, and from 3rd Battalion The Rifles, Rifleman Mark Turner. We owe them an immeasurable debt of gratitude. Both were engaged to be married, and our thoughts are with their loved ones and their families.
	It is because of all our brave men and women in our armed forces that our families, our communities and our country are safer and more secure. At this time, it is right to remember all who have given their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan and all those who serve in our armed forces. I spoke to President Karzai and then President Obama yesterday. Our security forces in Sangin will be increased by about 500 from the Afghan security forces, providing greater security for the people of the region and support to our troops.
	We are also sadly reminded today of the sacrifice made by members of our emergency services. We send our condolences to the family and friends of the two brave firemen who died in Southampton last night. We pay tribute to the bravery and commitment demonstrated by all our emergency and public services.
	This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Sandra Osborne: May I add my condolences to all those who have lost their lives in the service of their country?
	If he is re-elected, will the Prime Minister guarantee that he will not take £6 billion out of the economy?

Gordon Brown: The big issue is whether we can secure and assure the economic recovery. To withdraw £6 billion from the recovery now would put jobs at risk, put businesses at risk and put our growth at risk. We cannot cut our way to recovery-but we could cut our way to double-dip recession. In 2011 we will use the rise in national insurance to guarantee that we fund our policing and our schooling, and to make sure that the health services guarantees of cancer care and of being able to see a GP at weekends and in the evenings are kept. Those guarantees will be kept, because of the decisions that we make.

David Cameron: I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Guardsman Michael Sweeney and Rifleman Mark Turner, who have been killed in Afghanistan in the past week. Two hundred and eighty British servicemen and women and Ministry of Defence civilians have now lost their lives while serving in Afghanistan. As we prepare for the end of this Parliament, we should remember the sacrifice that they and their families have made and acknowledge the huge debt that we all owe to our armed forces for the bravery that they show, day after day.
	I also join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to James Shears and Alan Bannon, the two firefighters killed while tackling a fire in Southampton last night.
	As this is the last Prime Minister's questions of this Parliament, it is the last chance for this Prime Minister to show that he is accountable for the decisions that he has made. Will he start by admitting that when British forces were sent into Helmand, they did not have sufficient helicopters to protect themselves and get the job done?

Gordon Brown: I do not accept that in any operation to which we sent our troops our commanding officers gave wrong advice; they told us that they were properly equipped. Every time, in every operation, we ask our commanding officers, "Are we able to do this operation?" and our commanding officers have said yes, they can. So I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that we have done our best to equip our troops, and we will continue to do so. It is right that I take full responsibility, but I take the advice of our commanding officers, and the advice of our commanding officers is very clear.

David Cameron: That answer sums up this premiership. The Prime Minister takes no responsibility and always blames somebody else. Why can he not just admit something that everybody knows to be true-that there were not enough helicopters? Let us listen to Colonel Stuart Tootal, former commander of 3 Para. He said:
	"repeated demands for more helicopters fell on deaf ears. It increased risk for my paratroopers, but",
	as he put it,
	"the decision-makers"-
	yes, the Ministers-
	"were not the ones driving into combat when we should have been flying in."
	The Foreign Office Minister that the Prime Minister appointed, Lord Malloch-Brown, said as late as last year:
	"We definitely don't have enough helicopters."
	Presumably, the Prime Minister is going to tell us that all those people were just deceived.

Gordon Brown: We have increased the number of helicopters in Afghanistan. We have increased the flying time by more than 100 per cent. I think that the right hon. Gentleman should recognise that the Merlins were adapted, and are now in Afghanistan. He should also recognise that the Chinooks were also adapted, so that they, too, can be in Afghanistan. He should recognise that we have other helicopters in Afghanistan that are working, and we are part of an international operation in Afghanistan, where we share equipment with our coalition partners. I have to say to him that the amount of money spent in Afghanistan now is £5 billion a year; that is 1,000 extra vehicles, and twice the number of flying time hours for our helicopters. I think that he should accept that our troops, for the operations that they are asked to undertake, have been given the equipment that they need. That is the right position.

David Cameron: Again, no answer.  [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Government Back Benchers must calm down.

David Cameron: Why should anyone believe this Prime Minister, when he was the first in history to go in front of a public inquiry and not give accurate information about defence spending? Let me ask about another decision for which this Prime Minister ought to be accountable. In the last 13 years, he has robbed pension funds of £100 billion. His own welfare Minister said:
	"when Labour came to power we had one of the strongest pension provisions in Europe and now probably we have some of the weakest".
	Presumably, he was deceived as well. Will the Prime Minister finally admit that robbing the pension funds was the wrong decision for Britain?

Gordon Brown: The right hon. Gentleman said that there was no answer to the last question, but it is he who has never given an answer on any single policy. As far as pension funds are concerned, we debated the matter in this House two years ago, and the shadow Chancellor put the case that the dividend tax credit had affected the ability of pension funds to have money. I showed at that time that during the period before the stock market crash, what had actually happened was that the resources of the pension funds had doubled. He lost his case when he put it to the House of Commons; it is no use trying to put it again.
	What we have done over these last 12 years is give a pensioners' winter allowance, initially opposed by the Conservative party. What we are saying that we will do is link pensions to earnings-a link taken away by a Conservative Government. What we have done is give 2 million pensioners a pension tax credit, and have given them dignity in retirement-again, that was opposed by the Conservative Government. What we now have is a national concessionary fare scheme that gives pensioners the chance to travel the country; that would be at risk under a Conservative Government.

David Cameron: That, Mr. Speaker, is the sort of deception that we will rebut in this election campaign every time that it comes up. The Prime Minister must be the only person in Britain who thinks that robbing pension funds was a good idea. His own adviser, who sat in No. 10 Downing street, said that this Prime Minister
	"will go down in history as the one who destroyed our pensions system...He just ignores what he doesn't want to hear, then tries to cover up the consequences...people are finally starting to rumble Gordon Brown and it serves him right."
	Presumably she was deceived as well.
	Let us take another decision for which the Prime Minister needs to be held to account- [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. and right hon. Members are shouting themselves hoarse before we have even got to the hustings. Members must calm down.

David Cameron: They were shouting out about national insurance contributions, and this is a question about national insurance contributions.
	The Prime Minister has made the decision to introduce a jobs tax which will kill the recovery. This morning on GMTV, he said that business leaders who oppose this decision have been deceived. Is the Prime Minister really telling us that he knows more about job creation than business leaders who employ almost a million people in this country?

Gordon Brown: Once again, I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman about what happened during this recession, and what we had to do to take this country out of recession. We had to nationalise Northern Rock, and the Conservatives opposed it. We had to restructure the banks, business supported us, but they opposed it. We had to take action to secure help for the unemployed. Businesses support the future jobs fund, they opposed it. We had to take action to help home owners. Business supported it, they opposed it. We had to take action to help small business itself, and they opposed the funds that were necessary.
	On national insurance, there is a clear choice. We can put national insurance up and therefore protect our schools, our hospitals and our policing, or we can do what the Conservatives traditionally do, and put our hospitals, our police and our health service at risk.

David Cameron: The choice is Labour's decision to go on wasting money and then put up tax on every job in the country. This is what business leaders said:
	"cutting government waste won't endanger the recovery-but putting up national insurance will."
	Let me ask the Prime Minister again. Does he believe that these business leaders, including members of his own advisory council, were deceived?

Gordon Brown: We cannot cut our way to recovery, and that is why to withdraw £6 billion from the economy now is the wrong thing to do. Let us be clear: the Conservative policies would put jobs at risk immediately, would put businesses at risk immediately, and would put growth at risk immediately.
	As far as 2011 is concerned, we have to make a decision. Do we want to maintain the improvement in our policing, our public services and our health service guarantees, and maintain investment in the schools? We say that that will cost that extra money on national insurance; they say no. The public must make up their minds. Do they want the public services to be maintained, or do they want the traditional Tory policy of putting our public services at risk?

David Cameron: This morning the Prime Minister said that these business leaders had been deceived. Since then another 30 business leaders have come again and said, "Ah, they're right, and the Government are wrong." Let me read the Prime Minister what they are saying. Paul Walsh, the head of Diageo, who is on the Prime Minister's business council-[Hon. Members: "A Tory!"] No, not a Tory, but one of the Prime Minister's advisers-although he is probably a Tory now; so are half the country. Let us hear what he had to say:
	"It's not true to claim businesses have been deceived. National insurance is a tax on jobs".
	Let us hear from John Egan, former head of BAA.
	"How can there be a deception? National insurance is a tax on jobs, pure and simple."
	Is not the truth this: that this Prime Minister would wreck the recovery by putting a tax on every job, on everyone earning over £20,000-a tax on aspiration, a tax on every business in the country? This Government would wreck the recovery.

Gordon Brown: It is the same old Conservative party-  [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Members must calm themselves. There are several weeks to go. The Leader of the Opposition was heard, and the Prime Minister will now be heard.

Gordon Brown: Once again, the right hon. Gentleman said nothing about the future; it is the same old Tories. To think he was the future once!
	We have the shortest ever waiting lists in the health service; 2.5 million more jobs since 1997; a Sure Start centre in every community in our country; more pupils than ever staying on at school; more students going to university; more pensioners out of poverty; and more dignity and security in retirement. We are the Government who have plans for the future. The Opposition have nothing to offer. Only a Labour Government can do it.

Tom Clarke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at the weekend Sudan was described on the BBC as the "hungriest place on earth"? Given his outstanding record on international development, both as Chancellor and as Prime Minister, will he use his influence within the international community to ensure that the hapless people of Darfur and that region are recognised for the suffering that they now endure?

Gordon Brown: As long as there are children suffering, as long as there are mothers dying in childbirth unnecessarily, and as long as young people are not getting education in schools, we have a duty as a country to act. I am proud-and my right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary has done a great deal to push this forward-of the fact that we as a Government have doubled the expenditure in real terms on overseas aid from 0.26 per cent. of GDP, which we inherited from the previous Government, to 0.52 per cent. today. That doubling of our investment in overseas aid is unparalleled in the past 20 years in any country, and I would hope that there would be an all-party consensus that spending on overseas aid can continue.

Nicholas Clegg: I, too, would like to add my expressions of sympathy and condolence to the family and friends of Rifleman Mark Turner from 3rd Battalion The Rifles, and Guardsman Michael Sweeney from 1st Battalion Coldstream Guards, who, having served so selflessly and bravely in Afghanistan, lost their lives there this week. We owe them, and everyone who has been killed or injured in Afghanistan, a huge debt of gratitude. I would also like to pay tribute to the bravery and sacrifice of James Shears and Alan Bannon, the two firefighters who lost their lives in Southampton last night.
	Today, he and he-the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition-are trying to fool people that they are serious about political reform, but last week we had yet more proof that that is not true. Here, in the minutes of the Hayden Phillips cross-party talks on party funding, in black and white, we see the Labour party protecting their trade union paymasters and the Conservatives protecting their paymaster in Belize. Who do they think that they are kidding? After they sabotaged that deal, why should anyone trust a single word that they have to say on political reform?

Gordon Brown: There is one person who prevented the Liberal and Labour proposal from being agreed by the Conservative party. The Conservatives withdrew from the talks, and the reason why is one name: Lord Ashcroft. That was the reason- [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must calm down. Members- [ Interruption. ] Order. Members should save their voices for the conversations that they will need to have with their constituents in the coming weeks.

Nicholas Clegg: rose- [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Nick Clegg must be heard.

Nicholas Clegg: The Prime Minister's answer was ridiculous. The two parties are colluding to block reform. Just last night they colluded to block the most minimal reforms to our electoral system and the other place. Just as they came together to block our proposals to give people the right to sack corrupt MPs, they came together to block our proposals to clean up lobbying. We all remember, back in 1997, the hope and the promise of that new Government. Look at them now. You've failed. It's over. It's time to go.

Gordon Brown: That seemed like a speech in search of a question.
	The right hon. Gentleman cannot deny the fact that when we discussed electoral funding and political reform, the Labour party and the Liberal party agreed on the means to reform the political funding system. There was an agreement between our two parties. The Conservative party pulled out of the agreement, and it pulled out on the recommendation of one person: the person who funds the Conservative party, the person who has given £10 million to the Conservative party, the person who has been offshore for many years-Lord Aschroft.

Linda Gilroy: Plymouth has had some of the most significant new health investment under Labour-the first new dental hospital for 50 years and the first new medical hospital for 25 years. What plans does the Prime Minister have to protect the progress that has been made and the way in which waiting lists have plummeted?

Gordon Brown: We have given every patient a guarantee that they will receive treatment within 18 weeks of seeing their doctor. That is a guarantee that we give personally to every patient, and in the next Parliament they can enforce it and go private, or go to another health authority if it is not met. The Opposition party refuses to back that guarantee.
	We have given a guarantee to cancer patients that they will see a specialist within two weeks, and in the next Parliament they will be able to have their diagnostic test within one week. That is a guarantee that we have given; the Conservative party will not support that guarantee, even to cancer patients. We have given a guarantee that general practitioners must see people in the weekends or in the evenings as well as during ordinary working hours, and that is a guarantee that we are giving but the Conservative party refuses to support. People will make up their minds in whose hands the health service is safe-and it is in the Labour party's hands.

Stephen Hammond: The Prime Minister opened his election campaign yesterday by promising to campaign among real people, but he spent the whole day visiting the homes of staunch Labour supporters. Does he intend to spend the whole campaign visiting and moving from safe house to safe house?

Gordon Brown: By the time I met them they were all staunch Labour supporters, as a result of the message that we put to them. Yesterday I visited a number of places in Kent and asked people what the major issue affecting them was, and they said that they wanted to secure the recovery. I had to tell people that the Conservative party taking £6 billion out of the economy would put the recovery at risk. The issue is very clear: jobs with Labour, unemployment under the Conservatives.

Martin Linton: Will my right hon. Friend heed the warning of the former Bank of England panel member David Blanchflower that if he followed the advice of the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) and the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) and took precipitate action to cut the deficit, it would lead not only to unemployment but to rising poverty, social disorder and soup kitchens?

Gordon Brown: This is the central issue of this year: will we secure the recovery? The Conservative party says, "Take £6 billion out of the economy and it doesn't matter". In fact, if we take £6 billion out of the economy now there will be more unemployment, more businesses will go under and there will be less growth. I believe that when we look at what people are saying and doing in every other country, we find that they are saying, "We've got to secure the recovery before we take any further action." Only the Conservative party is saying, "Take money out of the economy now". It has made a historic mistake.

Bernard Jenkin: Will the Prime Minister confirm the whole truth about helicopters, as confirmed by parliamentary answers from the Ministry of Defence? That is that he has already cut helicopter numbers from 522 to below 500 over the past 18 months-and under his plans, by 2020 there will be only 303 helicopters in Her Majesty's armed forces, a cut of 42 per cent.

Gordon Brown: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman takes this view, because we have ordered more helicopters for the future, reconditioned the Merlins to be in Afghanistan, repaired the Chinooks in such a way that they can now be used in Afghanistan, and increased the number of helicopter hours being flown by our troops. That is the answer to those who say that not enough is being done: more helicopters and more helicopter hours in Afghanistan now.

Denis MacShane: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to read the current issue of  The Economist and yesterday's  Financial Times, both of which, speaking for the City and business, say that if there is a change of Government, Britain will find itself dangerously isolated in Europe? Does he agree that we must work with Chancellor Merkel and other leaders, and not get into bed and breakfast with extremist politicians whose views of homosexuals, the holocaust and the Waffen SS are unacceptable in our democracy?

Gordon Brown: If the Conservative party had really changed, it would have changed its position on Europe-but it is the same old Conservative party, moving further and further to the extreme of Europe. It cannot form an alliance with Chancellor Merkel, President Sarkozy or the centre-right Christian Democrat parties in Europe, so it has to go into alliances with the most extreme elements of Europe. The latest thing that it did was vote against the transfer of information to deal with the problem of tax havens-exactly the sort of policy that Lord Ashcroft would want it to support.

Greg Hands: What did the Chancellor mean when he said that the job losses resulting from the national insurance hike would be manageable? How many is manageable?

Gordon Brown: I'll tell the Conservative party about jobs. Jobs mean helping young people to get into work, including the 200,000 jobs created by the future jobs fund now and over the next few months; jobs means helping young people to stay in work and with getting work experience and education, including the summer school leavers guarantee that we are giving; and jobs means helping small businesses through this difficult time, with the time to pay, the reduction of business rates and the help that we are giving them now. Take £6 billion out of the economy now, and we would put the recovery at risk. Take £6 billion out of the economy, and thousands of jobs would go.

Ian Cawsey: The Prime Minister is aware of the effect of the retrospective introduction of business rates on companies operating in various ports around the country, including Goole in my constituency. Five years after the planned implementation, the Valuation Office Agency has still to agree assessments with many companies. One of those, Scotline, went out of business after being summonsed for a rates bill of £700,000, which was reduced to £114,000 on appeal. Will my right hon. Friend meet the Chancellor, and the Department for Communities and Local Government, and get a fair and equitable solution to keep jobs in our ports safe?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; he has always been a persistent advocate of the ports and the jobs they create. I am very happy to meet him to talk about this issue and what we have done-the equal interest-free payments paid in instalments over an unprecedented eight years. I am happy to talk to him about what more we can do to help.

Michael Fabricant: As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has already said, Paul Walsh, the chief executive of Diageo and a member of the Prime Minister's own management and business advisory committee, has said:
	"I don't feel at all deceived. This isn't about politics. It's my firm view that the proposed National Insurance increase is a tax on jobs".
	Why does the Prime Minister think he has got it wrong?

Gordon Brown: I have said that the country has to make a choice. The Conservative party has made its choice, but I say to the country that if we want to maintain and improve our schools and policing, including the record numbers of police and neighbourhood policing in this country, and if we want to ensure the cancer guarantee, the GP guarantee and the other guarantees in our national health service, that has to be paid for. I believe that the country will make the choice in favour of maintaining and improving our public services, and I think that, once again, the Conservative party is exposed as the party that opposed public service improvements in our country.

Robert Wareing: Over the years there has been a continual drift away from direct taxes to indirect taxes, which, as the Prime Minister knows, bear most heavily on those who can least afford them. Does he agree that it is becoming time that we went back to the traditional Labour party policy on taxation, which is to redistribute wealth in favour of poorer people? I would like him to say in this general election that he will see direct taxation imposed on the billionaire rich, who should be carrying the real burden of taxation in this country.

Gordon Brown: I agree with my hon. Friend on one point, and that is the importance of tax credits, which have helped lower and middle-income people get out of poverty and secure their livelihood.  [Interruption.] The Conservatives are not interested in tax credits. Six million families in this country receive tax credits. Twenty million children, mothers and fathers benefit from tax credits. One of the cuts that the Conservatives propose for this year is to cut child tax credits for middle-income families, which would do more to push people into lower-income groups than anything else. They should change their policy and help middle-income families in this country.

Damian Green: The Prime Minister once notoriously promised "British jobs for British workers". Can he confirm that the latest official figures, produced this morning, show that the number of UK-born private sector workers is several hundred thousand lower today than it was in 1997?

Gordon Brown: Net migration to this country has been falling as a result of actions that we have been taking, and it has fallen in the last three years. It is falling because there are more people here locally getting the jobs that are available. The Conservatives should think twice about their policy on quotas for migration, because the very businesses that they are quoting want to be able to bring people into this country to do the jobs that are necessary. We propose the Australian points system on migration. The Conservatives' policy of a quota for immigration, without giving a number, would do great damage to British business.

Doug Naysmith: As I know my right hon. Friend is aware, the past 10 years have seen an unprecedented increase in support for science and technology in this country, but will he agree that now is not the time to cut investment in science, research and education? For it is in these areas that we will ensure our future economic success and economic growth.

Gordon Brown: Record investment in education, record investment in universities, record investment in science in our country, record investment in new innovation in our country: that is the record of our Labour Government, and I am proud to tell people that we are the party that supports industry in this country.

John Mason: Given the allegations surrounding Glasgow city council and the demands for an inquiry-I believe that the idea of an inquiry is supported by former leader Steven Purcell and Labour businessman Willie Haughey-will the Prime Minister support such an investigation, or is he afraid that there is something to hide?

Gordon Brown: The hon. Gentleman came down to this Parliament and he spent most of his time voting with the Conservative party. He should go back to Scotland and explain why, instead of voting for jobs, he is voting with the Conservative party in Parliament.

Hon. Members: Bye-bye!

Mr. Speaker: Order. I should be grateful if Members who are leaving the Chamber would do so quickly and quietly, as we have a ten-minute rule motion to hear.

Nuclear Fuel Cycle (Non-Proliferation and Public Liability)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Jamie Reed: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to make arrangements to reprocess spent nuclear fuel stored in the United Kingdom in order to meet non-proliferation objectives and to offset the decommissioning costs of major reprocessing facilities; and for connected purposes.
	The Bill would promote the utilisation of the full nuclear fuel cycle and the facilities that underpin it in Britain, so that the costs to the taxpayer of nuclear decommissioning may be reduced, and the successful implementation of national and international nuclear non-proliferation objectives may be met.
	Before beginning, I must point out that a number of my friends and family members work in the nuclear industry in my constituency, and that I am a former employee of the Sellafield nuclear plant, which sustains something in the region of 16,000 jobs in my constituency.
	My Bill is designed to resolve some of the most important issues facing us, as a country, and some of the most important issues facing the British nuclear industry today. The Bill presents a series of policy solutions to certain complex and interconnected challenges that are currently before us. The complete resolution of all the issues outlined in the Bill will require interdepartmental co-operation in Whitehall and intergovernmental co-operation internationally. Fundamentally, however, the genesis of the solutions to these problems lies constitutionally and legally in Parliament, but technically and physically at Sellafield, in my constituency.
	The Bill covers seven areas: the cost of nuclear decommissioning to the taxpayer; the potential of publicly owned nuclear facilities and materials to generate significant commercial revenue; the continuation of spent nuclear fuel reprocessing; the establishment of a new mixed oxide fuel manufacturing facility at Sellafield; the significant effect of that on the final radioactive waste inventory for the national deep geological depository; the management and governance of non-British radioactive materials in Britain; and, perhaps most importantly, the significant help that the proposals would give to our nuclear non-proliferation objectives.
	The Government have taken the right decision on decommissioning this country's ageing nuclear facilities. The estimated decommissioning cost to the taxpayer now stands at about £80 billion. This estimate could increase or reduce as decommissioning continues, as new techniques are developed and as expertise from all over the world is brought to bear on what are in some cases internationally unique engineering challenges. It should be recognised that a large proportion-perhaps the majority-of these costs have been incurred through our military nuclear programmes and not through our civil ones, although in the past that dividing line has sometimes been obscured.
	The creation of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority was an important and necessary step by the Government, and the relatively new body continues to do good work in my constituency and elsewhere around the UK. The NDA recently announced its business plan for the new financial year. It has a budget of £2.8 billion, £1.5 billion of which will be spent at Sellafield. This is all public money, and the rise in spending since the creation of the NDA has been both dramatic and profound. By way of illustration, when I left Sellafield in 2005, its annual budget was just below £900 million. The fact that we need to spend £1.5 billion of public money at Sellafield in this financial year is beyond doubt and, in my view, non-negotiable. However, the principal question for any time-but even more so as we build economic recovery and emerge from recession-is whether all that money should come directly from the public purse. Is there not another or an additional way in which the money can be found? The answer is yes.
	The potential of publicly owned nuclear facilities and materials to generate significant commercial revenue at Sellafield is enormous. The thermal oxide reprocessing plant, or THORP, at Sellafield is the single largest yen earner in the British economy. The plant is of vital strategic importance not only to the UK nuclear industry but to the UK as a whole, as it provides services that few facilities in the world can offer. Current reprocessing contracts at THORP-depending on operational performance-are scheduled to end in approximately 2020. THORP reprocesses spent nuclear fuel, separating out the reusable uranium and plutonium as oxides which are then capable of being made into mixed oxide-MOX-fuels.
	As the nuclear industry expands across the globe-no one can now doubt the reality or speed of that expansion-the marketplace for the services that THORP can provide continues to grow. This is not a hypothetical marketplace; it exists now, and potential customers are showing genuine interest in pursuing the route that I am outlining. It is incumbent on us as a nation to extract every single penny of value from the facilities at Sellafield, such as THORP and the Sellafield MOX plant, which have been so heavily invested in by the British taxpayer. These facilities are enormous assets, and they can and should be used as income generators, and the derived income could and should be used to limit the decommissioning costs to the public purse. This is not just sensible; it is just, fair and in the public interest. There is therefore a copper-bottomed case for continuing reprocessing at THORP beyond 2020, and it is now in our interests aggressively to seek and pursue the commercial opportunities that exist.
	In addition, there exist at Sellafield tens of thousands of tonnes of uranium dioxide and approximately 100 tonnes of plutonium oxide. Consultations are under way on how to classify these materials. Put simply, there is a stark choice to be made: the materials are either wastes or assets. If they are classified as wastes, it will cost billions of pounds of public money to treat, store and dispose of them. If, however, they are classified as assets-which they undeniably are-their value as component materials to service the growing international demand for MOX fuel will be enormous, and they will be worth tens of billions of pounds to the British taxpayer and to the nation.
	There is real interest from certain parties in developing a new MOX fuel manufacturing plant at Sellafield, and this should be pursued in the national interest. Using plutonium and uranium oxides in that way would certainly change the nature of the radioactive waste inventory that will eventually be placed into a deep geological facility somewhere in this country-potentially in my constituency. That decision would be entirely in the hands of local people, not politicians, but the status of the nuclear fuel cycle and the final inventory will inevitably have an effect on the process and on public attitudes.
	So there is clearly an issue of definition with regard to British and non-British radioactive wastes. The definition is a simple one, and the legally binding substitution arrangements that Britain has with its overseas customers work well. This is a prescriptive and demanding process, and it should be so. However, such is the nature of the constitutional change experienced by this country that new draft arrangements should now be established for the management, storage and governance of the radioactive materials currently stored at Sellafield, in case the definition of Britain changes.
	Clearly, as a British facility, Sellafield currently stores and treats materials that are generated within Scotland as part of the United Kingdom-and it has done so for many years. The arrangement works well. However, should the Scottish people opt to leave the United Kingdom-in my view, that is their inalienable right-these materials will cease to be classified as British. Such a move would mean that all Scottish radioactive waste stored and treated in Britain would have to be reclassified. Such a move would necessarily require new environmental, economic and policy arrangements. Potentially, all Scottish materials could have to be returned to Scotland at the cost of billions of pounds to the Scottish taxpayer. Such a move would probably require the creation of an independent Scottish Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, an independent Scottish regulator and an independent Scottish deep geological repository, and more.
	Alternatively, Britain could enter into entirely new arrangements for Scotland and establish a commercial arrangement whereby Scotland paid Britain for its waste to be treated and stored-again, at the cost of billions of pounds to the Scottish taxpayer, but again, the revenue could be used to accelerate decommissioning in Britain or to offset the costs to the British taxpayer.
	There are many more scenarios, and I hope that officials from the Scottish Government and Whitehall can meet soon to discuss potential eventualities and to develop a mutual way forward. These issues must be addressed in a calm, rational and consensual manner. To this end, I have written to the Scottish First Minister in the hope that we can begin this dialogue.
	Finally, the strengthening of the industrial base, which facilitates the nuclear fuel cycle in this country, provides us with the single best chance we have of not only meeting our own nuclear non-proliferation objectives, but helping others, particularly the United States, to meet theirs as well. The same skilled work force, academic base, industrial supply chain and industrial practices that will and should help us to exploit our nuclear fuel cycle technologies are the same as those that will help us to put nuclear weapons materials beyond use. We owe it to ourselves and to existing and future generations to do this, and we owe it to the taxpayers of this country to maximise every drop of value from the nuclear investments they have made. My constituents deserve nothing less.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Ordered,
	That Mr. Jamie Reed, Andrew Gwynne, John Mann, Phil Wilson, John Robertson, Albert Owen, Mr. Richard Caborn, Hilary Armstrong, Mr. Alan Milburn and Mr. John Hutton present the Bill.
	Mr. Jamie Reed accordingly presented the Bill.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 April, and to be p rinted (Bill 103).

Business of the House

Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have not selected an amendment to the motion, so the debate is on the main motion.

Harriet Harman: I beg to move,
	That the following provisions shall have effect-
	 Sittings on 7 and 8 April: general
	1. At the sittings today and tomorrow-
	(1) any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour, and shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House;
	(2) any Lords Amendments or Lords Message in respect of any Bill may be considered forthwith without any further Question being put;
	(3) Standing Orders Nos. 83D to 83H and 83I(2), (3) and (6) (conclusion of proceedings, &c.) shall apply to proceedings to be taken in accordance with this Order (but with the omission of Standing Orders Nos. 83D(2)(c) and 83E(2)(c));
	(4) notices of Amendments, new Clauses or new Schedules to be moved in Committee on any Bill may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time; and
	(5) Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.
	 Wednesday 7 April
	2. At today's sitting the following business shall be brought to a conclusion (unless already concluded) at the time after its commencement shown in brackets at the end of each sub-paragraph-
	(1) proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Bribery Bill [ Lords] (one hour);
	(2) Committee of the whole House and remaining proceedings on the Northern Ireland Assembly Members Bill [ Lords] (one hour);
	(3) proceedings on the Motion in the name of Secretary Alan Johnson relating to the draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2010 (one hour);
	(4) proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Debt Relief (Developing Countries) Bill (one hour);
	(5) any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the bringing in of an Appropriation Bill, presentation and First Reading of any Bill brought in in pursuance of that Motion and remaining proceedings on any such Bill, to which Standing Order No. 56 (Consolidated Fund Bills) shall apply (forthwith);
	(6) Second Reading and remaining proceedings on the Finance Bill (three hours); and
	(7) Committee of the whole House and remaining proceedings on the Digital Economy Bill [ Lords] (two hours).
	3. Proceedings on any Lords Amendments or Lords Message in respect of any Bill which are taken at today's sitting shall be brought to a conclusion (unless already concluded) one hour after their commencement.
	4. Paragraph 2(3) shall have effect notwithstanding Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents).
	5. Paragraph 2(6) shall have effect notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the intervals between stages of a Bill brought in upon Ways and Means Resolutions.
	6. If the Finance Bill is read a second time, it shall stand committed to a Committee of the whole House and the House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.
	7. If, on the conclusion of proceedings in Committee on the Northern Ireland Assembly Members Bill [ Lords], the Finance Bill or the Digital Economy Bill [ Lords], the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
	8. At today's sitting, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Messages from the Lords have been received and any Committee to draw up Reasons has reported.
	 Thursday 8 April
	9. At tomorrow's sitting proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 (Amendment) Bill shall be brought to a conclusion (unless already concluded) one hour after their commencement.
	10. Proceedings on any Lords Amendments or Lords Message in respect of any Bill which are taken at tomorrow's sitting shall be brought to a conclusion (unless already concluded) one hour after their commencement.
	11. At tomorrow's sitting, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House before a Message has been received from the Lords Commissioners.
	12. On Thursday 8 April there shall be no sitting in Westminster Hall.
	 General
	13. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
	14. The Order made on Friday 12 March 2010 that the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 (Amendment) Bill be considered on Friday 23 April 2010 shall be discharged; and, notwithstanding the practice of the House which forbids the bringing forward of an Order of the Day, the Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee, shall be considered tomorrow.
	15. A reference in this Order to proceedings on or in respect of a Bill includes a reference to proceedings on any Money Resolution, Ways and Means Resolution or Order of Consideration Motion in relation to those proceedings.
	16. The Speaker may not arrange for a debate to be held in accordance with Standing Order No. 24 (emergency debates) at today's sitting, or at tomorrow's sitting, before the conclusion of the proceedings at that sitting to which this Order applies.
	17. If today's sitting continues after 10.30 am on Thursday 8 April, this Order shall have effect as if any reference to the sitting on Thursday 8 April were a reference to today's sitting.
	Yesterday, I announced to the House the business that we will take in the run-up to Dissolution next Monday. This motion will enable the House to conclude the passage of legislation before the general election. It allows the House a truncated process for concluding the consideration of Government Bills that have completed all their stages in one House and have had at least a Second Reading in the Second House. It also provides for the Finance Bill and Appropriation Bill to be taken through all their stages, which is essential to the continuation of the tax system and of public expenditure during the election period. The only Government Bills that will be taken through this truncated process are those that have already received a substantial amount of scrutiny in both Houses, or those essential to the maintenance of the public finances.
	The motion provides an opportunity for the House to complete its consideration of two private Members' Bills that were unopposed on Second Reading and have completed their Committee stage.
	The motion enables the House's remaining time to be divided between the Bills. By the time the House rises on Monday it will, I hope, have passed 13 Bills, in addition to the 10 Acts that have already received Royal Assent in the current Session. Hon. Members know that the process will work only if the official Opposition agree to the measures presented by the Government, and I thank them for their co-operation.
	Under the terms of the motion, each of the following items of business will be allocated up to one hour in today's sitting: Third Reading of the Bribery Bill [Lords]; Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Northern Ireland Assembly Members Bill [Lords]; consideration of the draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2010; and remaining stages of the Debt Relief (Developing Countries) Bill. All stages of the Appropriation Bill will then be taken. Up to three hours will be allocated to the Second Reading and remaining stages of the Finance Bill. The Committee and remaining stages of the Digital Economy Bill [Lords] will then be taken for up to two hours. The House may also be asked to consider any Lords amendments or other Lords messages that may be received for up to one hour each.

Robert Smith: I note that one piece of unfinished business has not been included in the motion. Can the Leader of the House explain why no time has been allocated for the House to implement the Standing Orders for which it voted so overwhelmingly in principle, and which would finally redeem at least something of the record of the Government and the House in regard to reform? What held the Leader of the House up? Were the official Opposition against the allocation of that time, or were the Government against it?

Harriet Harman: As I have explained, during the remaining two days of business we must deal with 13 Bills and one statutory instrument, consideration of which I hope will be completed. That is a great deal for the House to get through.

David Howarth: rose-

Harriet Harman: I am still replying to the question asked by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith).
	The Chair of the Reform of the House of Commons Committee and others have tabled an amendment, which has not been selected for debate and which is the subject of the question asked by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine. The hon. Gentleman has called for the allocation of time in which to debate the Standing Orders relating to the establishment of a Business Committee for the next Parliament.

Bernard Jenkin: You oppose it.

Harriet Harman: I do not oppose it; I support it, as I have made clear.
	I do not want to take time away from any of the Bills that need to reach the stage of Royal Assent by providing time for the implementation of Standing Orders that will not apply until the next Parliament in any event. We have done the work on Commons reform in this Parliament. The Commons Reform Committee was set up in this Parliament, it has reported to this Parliament, and its reports been debated in this Parliament. All its key recommendations have been endorsed by the House, including the establishment of a House Business Committee.

Evan Harris: rose-

Harriet Harman: I am still replying to the question, although my answer may seem rather extensive.
	Following the substantive decisions on changes in our procedures, the House has agreed to the Standing Orders which will allow the election by secret ballot of Chairs of Select Committees. It has also agreed to the election by secret ballots of members of Select Committees, and to a new provision enabling Back Benchers to table motions which can be not only debated but voted on. All the measures that arose from the Wright Committee's proposals are in place.
	We have tabled the changes to Standing Orders that would establish the new Business Committee-which I support-and the House has agreed that that will start when the House returns after the general election. The motions are on the Order Paper, but they cannot be passed without a debate, because they have been objected to. As I said yesterday, I consider it wrong for hon. Members who lost the vote on the substantive motion to obstruct the clear will of the House by objecting to the new Standing Orders. The House has expressed its view in principle, and the Standing Orders implement that decision. I think it wrong for hon. Members to object to that, and I think that they should withdraw the amendments that serve as an objection.
	These changes are not due to become operational until the new Parliament. To put it bluntly to hon. Members and to anticipate any intervention, we are not going to propose to the House, because I do not think it is right to do so, that we sacrifice primary legislation, which can reach Royal Assent now, for the sake of a Standing Order that is not due to come into effect until after the general election. That is my position. I support this reform, I expect it to be seen through in the next Parliament-the work has been done in this Parliament-and hon. Members should be reassured that as this change has been agreed by the House, there is no way in which that genie will be put back in the bottle after the general election.

Evan Harris: Will the Leader of the House give way?

Harriet Harman: I will give way, but I am almost certain that I have answered the point and this is just a question of the hon. Gentleman's not agreeing. I do not think that it is right to sacrifice primary legislation for the sake of a Standing Order that will not be implemented until the next Parliament in any event.

Evan Harris: The terms of the motion, which the Leader of the House actually voted against, provided for this change to be made in time for the beginning of the next Parliament. That means that this should be done in this Parliament; it is the job of this Parliament. She accepted that when she said:
	"I am under a duty and a responsibility to ensure that this happens before the next Parliament so that...Standing Orders are in place."-[ Official Report, 18 March 2010; Vol. 507, c. 986.]
	Was she wrong then? Did she misspeak? Was she trying to mislead us? Why did she say that then, given what she is saying now?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Just before the Leader of the House responds, may I say that I am sure that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) would want to insert the word "inadvertently" before the word "mislead"? I am sure that he would not accuse the Leader of the House of seeking to mislead the House.

Harriet Harman: I am not, either inadvertently or in a calculated way, trying to mislead the House, nor did I misspeak. What I have said is that following the will of the House being expressed in the resolution, I would ensure that Standing Orders giving effect to that will would be on the Order Paper, so that the will of the House could come into effect. That is what I have done. Hon. Members who lost the vote have put up an objection in order to stop this going through now. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that we all agreed that, irrespective of whether the Standing Orders are dealt with now or after the House returns, the new House Committee would not be operational until the new Parliament. We should be ensuring that it is operational when the House gets back after the general election. My priority is to get these two private Members' Bills and these 13 Bills through to Royal Assent; I want to get the primary legislation on to the statute book. The Standing Orders to allow the House to manage its own business can be dealt with when the House gets back. I really believe that when the new Members arrive in the next Parliament, they will find that we have paved the way for the House to organise its own business, instead of having the Leader of the House pick on behalf of the House the subjects of topical debates and the non-Government business. That is progress that the House has made. Opinion has moved on and that will be the settled will of the House when the House gets back.

David Howarth: rose-

Harriet Harman: No, I am not going to give way, because I have just got to discuss tomorrow's business.

Martin Salter: rose-

Harriet Harman: Okay, I will give way to my hon. Friend.

Martin Salter: Can the Leader of the House explain why we can find time to deal with two private Members' Bills and a statutory instrument-we are likely after a long night tonight to rise around tea time tomorrow-yet we cannot find an hour, and I must say that this will not take an hour, to deal with this Standing Order? It was promised in order to give expression to the will of this House and of a Select Committee that I and many others spent the summer serving on, its having been set up by this Prime Minister.

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend is one of the Members who have done so much to move the view of the House forward and to work out the detailed arrangements so that we can carry out our business better. That is the will of the House; it has been resolved and, as I say, the Standing Orders have been drafted. However, I do not think that he should minimise the importance of giving priority to important Bills, such as the Digital Economy Bill and these two private Members' Bills, and leaving the Standing Order changes, which have all been drafted so are all ready to go when the House returns, until later. Hon. Members are creating the impression that somehow the plug has been pulled on reform, but that is not the case because what has happened is that the Wright Committee has made a great many proposals and the House has agreed them. That is a major step forward. Just one set of Standing Orders remains, which can safely be left until the House gets back.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Harriet Harman: No, I am not going to give way, because I have set out my view.

Tony Wright: rose-

Harriet Harman: I shall give way to my hon. Friend.

Tony Wright: I understand that this is not a difficulty of my right hon. and learned Friend's making and that she is not responsible for the situation in which we find ourselves. However, we are in a very silly position because the House has resolved that it wants to do this in this Parliament-that is what the House has agreed-and it simply requires a small action on her part to enable it to happen. The objectors are not going to press their objections; one of them has already told me that his objection has been withdrawn. This can be done readily and easily. The House has said that it wants to do it, so I, again, ask her to ensure that we can.

Harriet Harman: If the objections are being withdrawn, as my hon. Friend has said, I would very much welcome that. Any amendment would have to be withdrawn, but then these provisions could go through on the nod. There is no doubt about that. Most of the Standing Orders that we drafted, which simply gave expression to the will of the House and put it into practice, went through on the nod. I shall check up again with the Table Office, and if all those who objected have withdrawn their objections-I think it is wrong for them to object to the House's having Standing Orders that put into effect the will of the House-of course this can go through.
	I propose that in tomorrow's sitting the House takes the remaining stages of the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 (Amendment) Bill, for up to one hour. The House may then go on to consider any Lords amendments or other Lords messages that may be received relating to six Bills: the Crime and Security Bill; the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill; the Children, Schools and Families Bill; the Energy Bill; the Financial Services Bill; and the Flood and Water Management Bill. Up to one hour is allocated for consideration of Lords amendments on each Bill. We expect Parliament to be prorogued at the end of tomorrow's sitting. I hope that the House will agree to this motion swiftly so that we can proceed to consider the important legislation before us.
	On behalf of the Government, I conclude by thanking all the staff of the House for their work during this Parliament. I also extend my deep thanks to the civil servants across Whitehall and in my private office who support the work of the Office of the Leader of the House. I commend the motion to the House.

George Young: May I endorse what the right hon. and learned Lady said in her concluding remarks and thank all those who have worked in the House and done a fantastic job supporting us and helping us to perform our duties to the public? This has not been the most illustrious of Parliaments, but I hope that those of us who are returned in six weeks' time can work together to ensure that the next one is better.
	This could be a long day, because nine hours are programmed for debate after this debate, which can go on until 7 o'clock. That is in addition to any votes and consideration of any Lords amendments, so I shall keep my comments to a minimum. As I said yesterday, the Conservatives have taken, and will continue to take over the next few days, a constructive approach to the Bills before the House. I must say that there would have been much less to wash up had we spent less time earlier in the Session on the so-called declaratory Bills-the motherhood and apple pie Bills, which were simply press releases put into legislation. They took time away from the important Bills, some of which now confront us. We could thus have made faster progress on them.
	It is of course the collective responsibility of the House to ensure that the legislation is properly scrutinised. The Government have no divine right to get their Bills on to the statute book if they have not gone round the course. Conservative Members are pleased that some of the more objectionable sections of these Bills have been removed, and I hope we can work together to ensure that the good bits safely reach the statute book. I will leave it to my various Front-Bench colleagues to pass comment on each Bill as we reach it.
	Let me return to the point that took up much of the right hon. and learned Lady's speech, but first may I respond to the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith)? The Opposition have in no way obstructed the bringing forward of the Standing Orders, which is what he implied. I echo the thoughts of colleagues across the House, who are bitterly disappointed that the Leader of the House has failed to find the time for the debate on the Back-Bench business committee.

Robert Smith: I was not implying that but genuinely seeking to learn from the Leader of the House, as it was a two-party negotiation, where the stumbling block was. The Government are clearly the stumbling point. I welcome the fact that the shadow Leader of the House seems to be committed to that proposal. Is that commitment one that he thinks he could deliver if he were in government?

George Young: I have a peroration that, if the hon. Gentleman can contain himself, will give him the answer to his question.
	I was checking up on the commitments the right hon. and learned Lady had given this House. On 11 March, she said that
	"it is gratifying that there were very big majorities in the House last week to resolve this matter and move forward. We have the resolutions of the House. My task now is to make sure that the House is given an opportunity to endorse the Standing Orders that will give effect to them. My mandate is the will of the House as expressed in the resolutions. We need Standing Orders to give effect to them-nothing less."-[ Official Report, 11 March 2010; Vol. 507, c. 433.]
	On 18 March she said:
	"He"-
	meaning me-
	"need not worry about progress being made on the proposals that we shall be going forward with. We need to complete the process of placing before the House for its approval the Standing Orders that would give effect to the resolutions of the House, and they will indeed be brought forward"-[ Official Report, 18 March 2010; Vol. 507, c. 975.],
	and on 25 March:
	"On the Reform of the House of Commons Committee proposals, we have put on the Order Paper the Standing Orders that give effect to the resolutions of the House, and we will bring those forward for approval by the House on Monday."-[ Official Report, 25 March 2010; Vol. 508, c. 380.]
	She did not-she had to withdraw that commitment in a subsequent debate on the same day.
	The Leader of the House has to accept responsibility. She could have found the time-an hour and a half-between the beginning of March and now to debate the Standing Orders and for the House to reach a conclusion. On an earlier occasion, because one of my independently minded Back-Bench colleagues objected to a private Member's Bill, she tried to pin the responsibility on the official Opposition. By the same analogy, those who have objected to these Standing Orders are all members of her party and, by the same logic, she must accept some collective responsibility for the fact that it is Labour Members of Parliament who have tabled amendments that have obstructed their progress.
	In a recent argument in  The House Magazine, the right hon. and learned Lady declared, in reference to parliamentary reforms, "Bring it on, Sir George". In the light of what has now happened, I am delighted to confirm to the House that that is exactly what I might have to do in a few weeks' time.

David Howarth: I too am extremely disappointed that the Government have chosen not to allocate time for the completion of the reforms proposed by the Committee chaired by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright)-or at least those parts of them that the Government committed themselves to bring forward. As the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) has just said, the Leader of the House committed herself to doing that on three separate occasions in three separate weeks. The only thing I would add to his comments is that she repeatedly said that the relevant orders would be brought before the House before the next election.
	On 11 March, the right hon. and learned Lady said that
	"I can assure the House that we will bring forward the Standing Orders, and there will be an opportunity for the House to endorse them before the next election."-[ Official Report, 11 March 2010; Vol. 507, c. 433.]
	On 18 March, she said:
	"I am under a duty and a responsibility to ensure that this happens before the next Parliament so that the Standing Orders are in place."-[ Official Report, 18 March 2010; Vol. 507, c. 986.]
	That is the commitment she is going back on today by saying that the completion of the work can be left to the next Parliament. That is not what she was saying in March.

Martin Salter: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is risible to hold the notion that the dewy-eyed political virgins that will descend on this place, irrespective of the outcome of the general election, will have as their raison d'être a reforming zeal rather than seeking, as all new Members do, preferment as quickly as possible? Is this not a matter that should be resolved in this Parliament, as promised?

David Howarth: It is important that we do what we can now. Parliaments have nicknames-the Long Parliament, the Short Parliament, the Good Parliament and the Bad Parliament-and I am afraid that the next Parliament will be the Naive Parliament. We need to bear that in mind in what we decide to do today.
	The Leader of the House said that there is not time today or tomorrow to fit in these 90 minutes. Can she confirm that if the Government wanted to they could extend the wash-up period into Friday? That would give us an entire day to debate these matters. Will she give an assurance to the House that if we find ourselves, as we often do at Prorogation, with the House adjourned while waiting for the other place to complete its consideration of Bills-I am sure that that will happen-she will reconsider her decision and use that time to pass the Standing Orders? What is different about the Standing Order changes is that they do not require the consent of the other place. We can make them here ourselves without any ping-pong. That is a crucial difference between this proposal and her proposals for the consideration of Bills.

Evan Harris: Is there not something particularly special about this? In this case, the House spoke and the House voted for something to happen. I believe my hon. Friend has a side interest as an historian of this place and I would like to ask him whether a Government have ever previously defied the will of the House in not doing what they are bound to do by a resolution of the House. They had to act when they lost the motion on the Gurkhas. Have a Government ever before been so arrogant that they have defied the will of the House in this way?

David Howarth: I cannot think of an example of that. I can think of examples of Governments completely losing their ability to do what they have promised to do before they fall, but not in this situation, where the Government still have a majority that they could use to fulfil their commitment.
	Briefly, let me come on to what we are going to do tomorrow. The motion says that we will be considering Lords amendments and that there will be an hour for each of the Bills. Presumably that will include the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill. I thought I was going to come to this debate to say that an hour would not be enough to consider a Bill of such massive importance, but it seems that minute by minute the Government and those on the Conservative Front Bench are getting together to cross out more and more of it, including the Government's commitment to hold a referendum on electoral reform and to remove the absurd by-elections for hereditary peers. I noticed that the Leader of the House was pointing to the shadow Leader of the House, saying that this was all the fault of the wicked Tories. Let me say this to the Government: it is not; it is their fault.
	There is a different way forward which the Government have chosen not to take. They could have tabled a business motion in the Lords that would guarantee the passage through the Lords of the parts of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill that they are now agreeing with the Conservatives to get rid of. There are precedents for this because in 1997, when the Conservatives were last in charge, there was a business motion in the House of Lords in the wash-up period- [ Interruption. ] As the shadow Leader of the House says, the Conservative party at that point had a majority in the Lords. The question for the Government is why they have not tabled such a business motion and challenged the other parties in the Lords-the Liberal Democrats and the Cross Benchers-to support them on that motion. If they did that, I am sure they would get widespread support.
	What I suspect is going on is a combination of two things. On the one hand, the Government are split over whether they want these reforms at all. This has always been the case with electoral reform and the Labour party. I remember as an elector receiving a letter from a Labour candidate in 1997 promising electoral reform then. Strangely, 13 years later it has not happened. This is the normal pattern, and there are reactionary forces in the Labour party that are opposed to all political reform. I am sure that is one factor. The other factor is the attempt to raise an election issue by pretending that the Labour party is in favour of reform and the Conservatives are not, when the reality is that with the right advice and the right negotiations across parties those reforms could be put through now. That strikes me as an entirely fake manoeuvre.
	Those two issues-the completion of the reform of the House that was proposed by the Wright Committee, and the Government's pusillanimous treatment of political reform-mean that although the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire was able to say that he would follow a constructive approach, both in this House and in the other place, I presume, through the wash-up, I cannot make the same commitment because my party has been excluded from the negotiations. So I am not in a position either in this House or, more importantly, in the other place to say that we will co-operate with the Government in getting their business through. Indeed, we will start that approach this afternoon by dividing the House on this motion.

William Cash: The problem that has been presented by the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) has been alluded to already in this morning's Westminster Hall debate secured by the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter). In the limited time available in that debate, we considered some of these questions.
	This issue is the effectiveness of government and who runs the House of Commons-and in turn the country. It is also about the imbalance that has been created as a result of the persistent degradation and diminution of this House's role in relation to the Government. There is a way of describing that in relation to the mechanics of this House-it is called "the usual channels" or the Whips. Of course there has to be a Whip system, otherwise there would be chaos. People join political parties, and when they vote for those parties, using their freedom of choice at the ballot box, they have the right to expect that there will be a proper and proportionate degree of support for the causes and political objectives that they supported in the general election. But-and this is a very big but-that does not mean that there is an unconditional requirement to do whatever the Whips, and therefore the Government, want. We talk about the Whips as though this is all because of them, but it is not-it is because of the orders that are given by the Government. This is about the patronage that the Government exert and the determination and the political will of having what they want. The Prime Minister says, "I will insist upon this; I will do what I want," and he issues the directions down through the system. That is how the Whips operate.
	Sometimes, criticising the manner in which the Whip system operates-I am one who does that-does not sufficiently explain the mechanics of the use of power that is exercised, but not on behalf of the people: once a person has been elected as the Prime Minister, the question is whether he is bound by manifesto commitments. The short answer, in relation to the European constitution, for example, is quite clearly no. Obviously, when it comes to having a referendum on the European issue, the answer is also no. The real issue before us, then, is this: we have to rebalance and recalibrate the manner in which the Whip system operates in practice, and the mechanism for that is the Standing Orders. It is impossible to imagine that somehow or other there will, by the waving of a magic wand, be a change in the way the Government and legislation operate in practice, so the Standing Orders themselves will have to be addressed. As I have said a number of times in the past few months, it is essential to return power to the House of Commons and take it away from the Executive.
	I have not the faintest idea whether you agree with this, Mr. Speaker, and it is not for me to suggest that you should agree to it, or whether you have any right to agree to it, as we are talking about the House of Commons and not about the Speaker. I believe that the Speaker's role, in historical terms, is, as was said on a famous occasion, to be a servant of the House. The Speaker might therefore want to give guidance and might have his own views, but when it comes to the application of the rules, the Executive in the 1880s were given the power to determine Standing Orders. I believe that many others would agree with me if they were aware of what was going on, and would want the running of the Standing Orders to be vested in the impartial role of the Speaker himself. That would be one way of ensuring that we did not have an omnipotent Government who were driven by political will, irrespective of the freedom of choice that was exercised at the ballot box, and through the party Whip system.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me say to the hon. Gentleman that his historical ruminations are endlessly fascinating and his bid for greater powers for the Speaker is obviously enticing, but I feel sure that he will now focus his remarks on the business of House motion.

William Cash: It is against that background, because it is important that we get the landscape right, historically, politically and practically, that I move to the issue of the Wright Committee report and, of course, Parliament First. Like other Members present I have been a member of Parliament First, and I have said in the past that I would prefer it to be called People and Parliament First because it is about the people. This is not our Parliament; it is the people's Parliament, but we are their representatives-another practical requirement. When it comes to the business of the House and what the Leader of the House appears to have done-I mentioned this to the Deputy Leader of the House this morning in Westminster Hall, and we still do not have an answer; she told us she was not in a position at this stage to make a declaration as to exactly what was going to happen on this business of the House motion-

Barbara Keeley: I think I am being misquoted, Mr. Speaker. I said that I was not going to pre-empt the debate.

William Cash: Yes, well, it comes to much the same thing. Let us not split hairs. The important question is about the proposals of the Wright Committee, Parliament First and others who have fought this battle for radical reform. We know that Select Committee Chairmen are going to be chosen by secret ballot and that, through the party groups, members of relevant Select Committees will be chosen. I think that all the Select Committees should be included, but that is a separate issue, although I note that the European Scrutiny Committee and the Public Accounts Committee do not seem to be included. Irrespective of all that, the real issue about the business committee being proposed is that the Government are not prepared to put their money where their mouth was. They said that they were going to do it, and the House agreed to do it, but they have used their control over the House-I go back to my earlier comments about their control by political will over this House through the Whips and their control of the Standing Orders-and they are bypassing decisions that have, to all intents and purposes, already been taken by the House, on behalf of the people of this country, to return the running of the business of the House back to where it belongs. This is a disgraceful betrayal of the role of the Leader of the House.
	The Leader of the House made her speeches and we heard them. I took part in all those debates, as did other Members who are present today. However, her actions seem to be to do with the political will of the Government and No. 10-and, no doubt, on instructions. I have an idea that she might be more on our side than she is prepared to admit. I believe she has been told by the Whips and No. 10 to do what she is doing, which is betraying this House and the people of this country. The bottom line is that she is taking away the House's right to have a Back-Bench business committee that would enable real power to be taken back from the Executive and given to Parliament on behalf of the people who vote in general elections.
	This is about freedom of choice. It is not a philosophical question, but a practical one. People sometimes think that matters of constitutional law and practice are pure abstract theory, but they are not: they are about the exercise of power, and this is an extremely good example of a deliberate misuse of power that is a betrayal of the British people just as we are about to embark on a general election.
	Moreover, the House business committee that was being discussed has simply dropped off the agenda. Unless we hear something to the contrary from the Leader of the House, this business motion is in effect a clear betrayal of decisions that were made, and of arguments advanced, in the interests of the people who use their free choice to vote in general elections. They need people like us to represent their interests in the constituencies, and that is why I take the gravest exception to what I am observing today.
	I do not think I am going to hear anything to counter my fears. I am convinced that the talk about referendums on parliamentary reform, proportional representation and alternative votes is just another smokescreen that is being used to take away the British people's right to make their own decisions. The proposed changes to the electoral system would cause votes to be reshuffled by a mechanism that would dilute freedom of choice at the ballot box.
	Lloyd George was on to this. I will not repeat what I have said in previous debates, but I have had some banter on this topic with the hon. Member for Cambridge. I like him very much: he is a distinguished lawyer who knows his onions, but I think the Liberal Democrat party has slightly forgotten its origins in the Speaker's Conference of 1911 and the 1931 election.
	I set out all these matters in more detail the other day, and I shall not repeat them now, but Lloyd George was completely in favour of proportional representation when it suited him and completely against it when it did not. This is all about the practicality of power, as I have described already.
	The phrase "constitutional law" is almost irrelevant when one looks at what goes on in this House, because we are really talking about the use of power. A Government can exercise power when they have gained control over the system, and it is the way they do that that is dressed up as the constitutional process.
	The bottom line is that the business motion is being used to programme Bills so that we cannot discuss them. An example of that is the Government's disgraceful behaviour with regard to the Digital Economy Bill. There may not be anything intrinsically wrong with many of its objectives, but it is wrong-in principle and in fact-for us to use truncated legislative procedures. They do not give the people of this country the sort of legislation they deserve because nothing is discussed properly.
	Of course, the use of such procedures also takes away from Members of Parliamentary their incentive to be in the House at all. They know perfectly well that the vote will go according to decisions taken by No. 10, the Leader of the House, the Whips and the Executive. All the proposals on alternative voting and the attempt to introduce a greater degree of fairness-

Mr. Speaker: Order. If I were a student at a tutorial being conducted by the hon. Gentleman, I would no doubt find it very satisfying, but I am seeking to chair an orderly debate. He must resist the temptation to dilate on matters that are well wide of the motion. I feel fairly confident-at least hopeful-that he might be drawing his remarks to a close, because I know that he will be sensitive to the wish of other people to speak in the debate.

William Cash: I am extremely glad that you have made that point, Mr. Speaker, because I was just beginning my peroration. The point that I was making may not be Periclean, but it is certainly relevant to what is really wrong with this House-the way that it has been betrayed by those who use their political will to prevent people from changing the system or expressing their views. The same will happen again if this motion goes in the direction that it appears to be going. It is an attack on freedom of speech in this House-that is the level of the betrayal.

Evan Harris: Following on from what the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) just said, the treatment of the Digital Economy Bill is symptomatic of what has happened to this House. It is nothing short of outrageous that, the day after its Second Reading, we will have just two hours in which to attempt to debate the remaining stages of such an important and controversial Bill.
	It is simply not good enough for the Government to say that the Bill has been scrutinised by a bunch of unelected people at the other end of this building. That was what we were told yesterday, when Ministers said that everything was okay because there had been hours of scrutiny in the House of Lords. The last time I looked, it was this House that was elected. We are the ones who are accountable to constituents-despite the vagaries of an electoral system that means that the general election is already over in about 400 seats-yet we will have just two hours for debate. Many amendments will not be reached and many points will not be made, but the Government have the cheek to say that we should tell constituents during the election that we are doing a good job of scrutiny. It is a complete farce, as there are significant concerns-which I share-about measures in the Digital Economy Bill.
	There has clearly been a carve-up between the Conservative and Labour parties. They are entitled to come to an arrangement like that in the elected House, but they are surely not entitled to prevent those of us who disagree with them from reaching our amendments, making our points against the contents of the Bill, and dividing the House on our arguments. The Government are determined to ram through the Bill on the penultimate day of this Parliament, in the space of two hours. It is a process that should take several weeks in Committee and at least one whole day-it should be more-on Report, when people are able to lobby.
	How can we look our constituents in the eye and say that this is an accountable House when they do not even have time to lobby in favour of amendments? They are not able to do that lobbying because the amendments cannot be tabled until the Bill has been given a Second Reading.
	There is no doubt that this so-called Leader of the House will go down in history as the destroyer of scrutiny. Under her stewardship, far more Opposition and Back-Bench amendments and new clauses-and indeed Government amendments and new clauses-have not been reached than has been the case with any other Leader of the House in recent history. I suspect that the same would be true for the more distant past.
	Hardly any major Bill has received adequate scrutiny. The knives have been put in place after the business that needs to be reached, rather than before. The nature of the carve-up by Labour and the Conservatives to undermine scrutiny of the Digital Economy Bill is just a typical example of that.
	That is why the House decided to do something about the Government's approach. On certain points in the Wright Committee report, and on behalf of the Committee itself, hon. Members disagreed with the both Government and Conservative Front Benches and instead voted for two critical measures to improve scrutiny.
	The Government keep saying, "Oh, you've got your Select Committee changes." I welcome those changes, but they are not about scrutiny on the Floor of the House. The two measures that have been approved by hon. Members are, first, that a House business committee be set up in the next Parliament to enable us, as a House, to determine how much scrutiny legislation is given. That would take away from the Government the ability to ram through legislation in the way that is happening today and has happened for the past 10 years. The second measure was to set up a Back-Bench business committee. The vote in favour of the detail of that proposal went 2:1 against both of the major party Front Benches. As other Members have said, the Government are clearly defying the will of the House by not introducing those amendments. It is a tragedy that we do not have a chance to deal with them.
	With the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) and others, I was involved in tabling an amendment to give the House the opportunity to divide on whether time should be provided tomorrow, but the amendment was not selected. I am not able to question the selection, but I think I can say that if there had been any way for the voice of Back Benchers to be heard on these matters, the amendment tabled by the hon. Gentleman, who has just entered the Chamber and is not at all out of breath, would have been selected. I think that in his selection the Speaker has been bound, on a Government day, to let the Government have their business. This is toxic to democracy in the House.

William Cash: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman uses the word toxic. I could not agree more-the words toxic and betrayal go together. When the hon. Gentleman says "bound" to make the decision, does he really mean "bound" or that there was some convention or Standing Order or some other thing that led to a decision that some people rather deplore?

Evan Harris: I do not want to be led-

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I just say, before the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) develops his argument, I know that he will not want to be diverted from the path of virtue. The hon. Gentleman is aware that by convention the Speaker does not give reasons for the selection or non-selection of amendments. Of my commitment to this House, and the primacy of the role of Back Benchers, the hon. Gentleman need be-and I am sure is-in no doubt. We cannot get into consideration of why things were or were not selected. Those judgments have to be made, and a miscellany of factors is involved, of which the hon. Gentleman will be aware. I think we should leave it at that.

Evan Harris: I agree, Mr. Speaker. I was not about to be led. I was not going to try to explore reasons; I just noted that the amendment was not, apparently, selected. I do not want to be drawn from the path of virtue-at least not on this matter.
	I want to clarify what the Leader of the House has said, because we should not be in the position of thinking that we would get the Standing Orders. Many people might have had more fun during the last few weeks of their time in the House, not having to worry about such things, if we had not been led astray by the Leader of the House. She said that
	"it is gratifying that there were very big majorities in the House last week to resolve this matter and move forward"-
	move forward in this House.
	"We have the resolutions of the House. My task now is to make sure that the House is given an opportunity to endorse the Standing Orders that will give effect to them. My mandate is the will of the House as expressed in the resolutions."
	The Leader of the House is right about that.
	"We need Standing Orders to give effect to them-nothing less."
	I could have said that. I cannot understand how the Leader of the House inadvertently told the House something that turned out not to be true. She led us astray. I am told that by definition that is inadvertent, but I still cannot understand how she could have done it. She continued:
	"Whether or not that is the case"-
	that is, the concern about whether the Standing Orders were in the right shape-
	"I can assure the House that we will bring forward the Standing Orders, and there will be an opportunity for the House to endorse them before the next election."
	We are before the next election, but the record will show that the Leader of the House inadvertently said "before the next election", when now she says that, apparently, she meant to say, "after the next election". The House votes to do something before the next election. The Leader of the House tells us that there will be an opportunity for the House to endorse it before the next election, but then we are told that the House was not misled because it must have been inadvertent when she said that there was that opportunity.
	I do not know whether the Leader of the House is the bad person in this, or whether she is just forced to do the grubby work of the Prime Minister and higher powers, but at some point she should turn round and say to the people who were pulling her strings in that case, "I am not going to do this any more. I am not going to spend my time inadvertently giving the House the impression that things are going to happen that then don't happen."
	On the same day, the Leader of the House told me that she would send drafts of the Standing Order to everyone who had shown interest in the issue. No drafts were sent to anyone. She did not say, "I will table them. You can look at them, think about them and if you object, you can let me know." She said, "I will send drafts." I understood that "sending drafts" meant that we would be sent drafts, but perhaps I am being too literal and I was inadvertently misled in my understanding of the normal words that she used. She continued:
	"The question is not what I supported"-
	because she had not supported the detail-
	"what the shadow Leader of the House supported or what we both supported; what matters is what the House decided."
	I agree. That led me and others to believe that we would have the Standing Orders in this Parliament. The Leader of the House said:
	"The Standing Orders that I will bring forward in draft and consult the hon. Gentleman about"-
	that was me-
	"will be to bring into effect the will of the House."-[ Official Report, 11 March 2010; Vol. 507, c. 433-444.]
	Well, where are they? How can a parliamentarian of her experience, on three separate occasions within the space of a week, inadvertently lead us to believe that something would happen that did not happen? That is the height of inadvertence.
	The Leader of the House said:
	"We need to complete the process of placing before the House for its approval the Standing Orders that would give effect to the resolutions of the House, and they will indeed be brought forward."-[ Official Report, 18 March 2010; Vol. 507, c. 975.]
	The business motion-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It may also be inadvertence on the hon. Gentleman's part that he is saying something that has already been said a number of times and in similar ways during the debate. He may possibly be going into rather more detail than is justified by the overall terms of the motion.

Evan Harris: I did not think I would get through the debate without being warned and of course I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, the arrogance shown by the Government in their failure to bring forward the Standing Orders justifies repetition-if there is any repetition. I accede to your request, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I always do. I will just say how regrettable it is that in their last week in this place, many Members who served on the Wright Committee not only see the inability to put before the House what they worked so hard for, but see it done in a way that is a betrayal of what we were told.
	I see in his place the hon. Member for Cannock Chase, who has always encouraged me to be active on these issues. I am grateful to him. I am his willing tool in all this, and I take the opportunity once again to pay tribute to his work in steering the Committee. I think it is sad for him that we do not get these changes in this Parliament; and I am not convinced that we shall get them in the next Parliament. I think the Government know that.

Peter Soulsby: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the time that has been spent on debating the absence of the Standing Orders from the motion would have been better spent debating the Standing Orders themselves?

Evan Harris: I absolutely agree.
	I want to say a word about my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (David Howarth). The boat race notwithstanding-

David Howarth: And "University Challenge".

Evan Harris: -And "University Challenge", and probably some second-rate league tables, all give my hon. Friend the whip hand at the moment, in his eyes, but I am prepared to overlook those things. My hon. Friend's contribution today, yesterday and over the past few weeks has been magisterial. He will be greatly missed, because it is the work of people like him that has brought to the attention of the House the Government's failure, as shown by the business motion, to deal with some of the things that we should really be dealing with.

William Cash: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is right on that point-within the House. The problem is that this is a direct assault on the people of this country, and the voters, as we go into a general election. We are depriving them. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is incumbent on the media-including television and the BBC-to get the matter out into the arena of public opinion so that people know just how they have been betrayed?

Evan Harris: Yes, and that was going to be my final point. I do not think the media at large understand how critical the issue of parliamentary reform is. Yes, scrutiny by Select Committees is vital, but until Back Benchers can have access to the Order Paper, the Government will run this place for their own narrow benefit. Yes, they should have their time; yes, of course they should be able to get their business before the House in a timely way, but that does not mean that they should run the House. That is what the Wright Committee said. Our last report, which set out the Standing Orders that the Government should have brought forward in this business motion, was not opposed by any member of the Committee. There was consensus. The people outside that consensus now are the Ministers. Had I been able to catch the Speaker's eye in Prime Minister's questions, I would have asked why a Prime Minister, who in 2007 said that he wanted to see parliamentary reform, and who set up the Wright Committee-eventually-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I say to the hon. Gentleman, don't spoil it. We have had a good relationship over the years. I have had to rebuke him from time to time, but he should not push me too far. I think he is going way outside the motion.

Evan Harris: I was making the point that the business motion does not cover the Standing Orders that would deliver the commitment to parliamentary reform made by the Prime Minister at the outset of his premiership, and I shall ensure that I am more in order than I was earlier. The business motion therefore not only blocks the parliamentary reform that we need, but defies the will of the House, which voted by a huge majority for the Standing Orders to be in place before the election-that is the nub of the issue. The Government should be ashamed of themselves, and Conservative Front Benchers need to look closely at whether they could have done more in the negotiations to insist that the Standing Orders would be considered. I pay tribute to the work that the shadow Leader of the House has done on the issue, however, so this is nothing personal.

Shailesh Vara: We made our position on the Standing Orders absolutely clear during our negotiations with the Government-[Hon. Members: "What was it?] We said that we wanted them to go through to reflect the will of the House, rather than in the amended form proposed by the Leader of the House. That was set out by the shadow Leader of the House today and in yesterday's business statement. I assure hon. Members that we want to go with the will of the House, rather than the new version put forward by the Leader of the House.

Evan Harris: Of course I accept what the hon. Gentleman says at face value, but I regret that his position in the negotiations was not strong enough-perhaps this was not a big enough priority. Of course, it might be that the Government's top priority was not delivering the Standing Orders under the business motion and that they were saying, "No matter what, we're not doing that." I fear that the business motion will mean that we do not get this reform, and that will be a tragedy for those who have worked hard for it and for the House. It will also be a tragedy for the Prime Minister, who will look foolish, given what he said. More than anything else, however, it is a tragedy for the scrutiny that the House should deliver for the people.

Tony Wright: Until a few minutes ago, I had not intended to say anything about the motion. I was certainly taking a more benign and generous view of the situation than the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). I accepted the statement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House that she wanted the Standing Order to be enacted but that, unfortunately, that would be difficult because a few Members had tabled amendments. However, we heard an undertaking that whoever was in government in the next Parliament, the provisions would be brought forward. Although I was unhappy, I was content to leave it there.
	Yesterday, however, I wrote to the three Members who had tabled amendments to point out that I had been told that only their amendments were preventing the House from doing the thing that it had resolved to do. One of them told me that he would therefore withdraw his amendment. When I returned to my office a few minutes ago, however-I had not intended to return to the Chamber-I found a note that had been relayed to me by the office of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Durham (Hilary Armstrong), who is one of the amenders and, of course, a former Chief Whip. The note says:
	"She has received your email. She has forwarded it to the whips office. There is nothing she can do about it. She is currently away."
	After I read that note, I ceased to be benign and generous.
	This is outrageous on a number of grounds. It is outrageous that the express will of the House is being treated with contempt-I do not say by the Whips Office, but I do say by someone in the Whips Office. I had already been told that the amendments came from a single source, but we now know that to be the case. The situation not only treats the House with contempt, but treats my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House with contempt, because I know that she genuinely wants the provision to be enacted. However, by some device the House is being prevented from doing that, and if there is one thing at the heart of our proposals, it is a way of enabling the House to have more freedom of action on its own behalf, so on that fundamental ground, the position is outrageous.
	While I was happy to nod all this along in a rather grumpy way, I am no longer prepared to do so. Furthermore, and more importantly, the Leader of the House should not be prepared to be treated in such a way; her credibility is on the line now. She believes in this, but some ruse is preventing it from happening. It is not her fault, but only she can do something about it.
	As I said, I have stopped being rather gentle about this. I now feel quite aggressive, but that is because the House is being treated with contempt, and that is not the note on which we should end our proceedings.

William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the context of what has been said by the very distinguished Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), may I request some guidance about the constitutional role of the Leader of the House, as expressed by "Erskine May" and all the other authorities?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter on which I can rule; it is not for me to advise the hon. Gentleman.

Christopher Chope: The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) has made a fascinating contribution. I hope that everyone will remember what he said and the atmosphere in which he said it, because he showed that there is a speciousness on the part of the Government when they say that they cannot bring the Standing Order motion above the line because amendments to it would cause the House a lot of trouble. If the motion was brought above the line, the former Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for North-West Durham (Hilary Armstrong), would not be here to move her amendment, which would therefore fall, and we could go straight on to a vote on the motion. The situation demonstrates the cynical way in which the Government are operating. We must agree that there is a conspiracy on the part of the Government because the only alternative is to cast aspersions on the veracity of the Leader of the House when she said:
	"I can assure the House that we will bring forward the Standing Orders, and there will be an opportunity for the House to endorse them before the next election."-[ Official Report, 11 March 2010; Vol. 507, c. 433.]
	Did that mean anything other than what it would mean to anyone with a basic knowledge of English? It means that the Leader of the House assured us that we would be able to vote on the Standing Orders before Dissolution.

William Cash: I was not able to follow this up subsequent to my point of order, but I put it to my hon. Friend that it is traditionally understood in the House that the Leader of the House is responsible for the conduct of business on behalf of Parliament as a whole. Does he agree that this incident-whether the right hon. and learned Lady was forced into this position or agreed to it-demonstrates one thing: she has not carried out the functions of the Leader of the House as we understood them to be conducted?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. In putting his point to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) has demonstrated that he did not raise a point of order in the first place.

Christopher Chope: I will not be tempted into attacking the character and integrity of the Leader of the House, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) that it used to be a long-standing convention that the Leader of the House would stick up for the rights of Back Benchers, even if that made him or her unpopular with their Cabinet. However, that convention seems to have gone by the wayside. I recall that when the late John Biffen was Leader of the House, he made himself very unpopular as a member of the Government and with the then Prime Minister for sticking up for and performing the traditional role of the Leader of the House, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stone has referred. I am sorry that the current Leader of the House is no longer here.

Robert Smith: Is it not important to reinforce the point that it should be this House that finishes the business, because it is this House that has experienced the lack of accountability and the lack of scrutiny of the Government and wants to deliver that change, not a newly elected House that has yet to experience those failings?

Christopher Chope: Exactly. That is why we are all suspicious about what is to happen.
	I listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) said, and I did not think that his words were as strong an assurance as the words of the Leader of the House that I just quoted.

Martin Salter: Given the appalling collusion that appears to have taken place-my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) has proof positive of it-does the hon. Gentleman agree that Members who want to drive the agenda forward have no option but to vote down the business motion? Will he organise on his Benches to ensure that that happens?

Christopher Chope: If there is a Division, I shall certainly be in the No Lobby, and I hope that all those who want to stand up for the rights of Back Benchers will be there with me. The roof will not fall in on Parliament if the motion is voted down; the usual channels will simply have to get together and produce very quickly an alternative business motion-one that takes account of the expressed wish of the House.

Martin Salter: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his patience. Does he agree that we would not even have to go that far? The Government merely need to announce that they are prepared to table a revised business motion. If they did so, we could avoid an unseemly bun fight and an unseemly Division, and not detain hon. Members here too late tonight. We could certainly find the hour necessary in the plenty of time available on Thursday.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be no unseemly bun fight while I am in the Chair.

Christopher Chope: That intervention conveniently brings me to a proposition that I was going to make. The Leader of the House has said that the reason she is not prepared to table a motion on the Back-Bench business committee Standing Orders is that there is not sufficient time. I am the Member who tabled 15 amendments to the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 (Amendment) Bill. I hope that, when she replies to the debate, the Deputy Leader of the House will respond to this offer, which I make publicly.
	I am not part of the usual channels-not part of the carve-up-but I would be prepared to withdraw all my amendments to that Bill, thereby ensuring that we did not have to spend an hour discussing them tomorrow and that we therefore had an hour to discuss the Standing Orders relating to the business of the House and Back Benchers' access to the Order Paper. I would be happy to give way to the hon. Lady if she thinks that that offers a reasonable way through the present impasse. We are told that the Leader of the House really wants to deliver, but is being held back; well, I am offering, in effect, one hour of time for that purpose, because I think that those Standing Orders are much more important than even the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 (Amendment) Bill.

John Redwood: We have living proof of the need for the motion in the shambles giving no time for proper consideration. Is my hon. Friend of my opinion that never before has the House been asked to take the Second Reading of a big, contentious Bill, the Finance Bill, and Committee stage and all remaining stages of another big, contentious Bill, the Digital Economy Bill, on the same day, with lots of other business tabled as well? Is that not complete chaos?

Christopher Chope: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The sad thing is that, as was said at the beginning of the debate, the business motion is based on agreement between the two Front Benches. I find that difficult. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) said that there was a carve-up between the Labour and Conservative parties, but I disagree; I think there was a carve-up between the Government and the shadow Government, which is a very different proposition.

William Cash: Does my hon. Friend recall the number of people-if not the precise number, certainly the volume-who guaranteed that the matters that we are now discussing should go through when there was, on the face of it, a convergence of view between the two Front Benches? The view of the House as a whole was carried by a very substantial number of Members, who may not be in the Chamber at the moment but who would be enraged by what is going on.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is sad that not more Members are present, but that is probably because many take the view that there has been a carve-up and there is nothing they can do to influence it. However, it sounds as though, even as we speak, momentum is gathering behind those who will oppose the business motion, because that is the only way of getting across to the Government the strength of feeling among Back Benchers.
	Let me say a little about the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 (Amendment) Bill and the relevant provision in the business motion, which I think is without precedent, although I may be wrong about that. Paragraph 14 of the motion states:
	"The Order made on Friday 12 March 2010 that the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 (Amendment) Bill be considered on Friday 23 April 2010 shall be discharged; and, notwithstanding the practice of the House which forbids the bringing forward of an Order of the Day, the Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee, shall be considered tomorrow."
	That drives a coach and horses through the conventions of the House and procedures relating to a private Member's Bill. Many is the private Member who has made a judgment on the best day for their Bill to appear on the Order Paper; they cannot bring forward the Bill for discussion on an earlier date than the one on the Order Paper. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), in putting his Bill on the Order Paper for 23 April, was essentially indicating to the world at large that further discussion of his Bill was not going to take place.

William Cash: The Chief Whip has just come in.

Christopher Chope: As we are in the business of breaking conventions, perhaps the Chief Whip would like to participate in this debate and account for the behaviour of his predecessor, the right hon. Member for North-West Durham, to which the hon. Member for Cannock Chase referred.
	The Sustainable Communities Act 2007 (Amendment) Bill has not been through the other House and has not completed its Report stage. If the Government wanted the Bill to have more time, they could have given time for consideration: on many days in the 10 days before the short Easter recess, the House rose three or four hours before the appointed hour. In that time, we could have discussed that and other private Members' Bills, but the Government were against that. Going further back, I recall that the Government and Opposition Front Benchers voted down an amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) that would have allowed an extra Friday for debating private Members' Bills. Now, we are faced with the Government saying that the Bill is so important that it has to be passed with indecent haste. They are putting tremendous pressure on the other place, which will have to consider Second Reading and all remaining stages of two Bills within 24 hours, even though, I submit, there is nothing especially important about either of them.
	I conclude with a point about the speciousness of the argument advanced by the Leader of the House. She said that because there were amendments tabled to the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 (Amendment) Bill, that can be debated, but although, similarly, there are amendments tabled to the Standing Orders motion, they cannot go through. We cannot have that sort of inconsistency in the argument. It is perfectly sustainable to argue that the fact that amendments have been tabled to a measure means that the measure is blocked and should not go into the wash-up, but that does not fit in with the arguments made in relation to the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 (Amendment) Bill.

William Cash: Has my hon. Friend noticed that there is a certain buzzing among the Whips? The hornets' nest is now opening up. Following the remarks made by him, by Liberal Democrat Members, by some Conservative Members, and by Labour Members, particularly the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), there is a real buzz going on. Hopefully, this debate will turn into a substantial vote.

Christopher Chope: There is obviously going to be a Division. I know that at least two more Liberal Democrat Members want to speak. My hon. Friend has perhaps picked up on a feeling that the powers that be may want to move a closure motion-the Chief Whip is nodding-but one of the consequences of such a move is that it absolves the Deputy Leader of the House from having to answer any of the points raised in the debate. It is a very convenient procedural device to close down Back-Bench discussion. I will resume my seat in the hope that the Government Chief Whip, in one of his last acts in this House, will exercise some self-restraint, and will allow the other two Members who have been seeking to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to participate in the debate. I am sure that I will be surprised.

David Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In light of the revelations by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), I wonder whether it might be in order to move a manuscript amendment to the motion. The manuscript amendment would read,
	"To add at end:
	() that the motion Backbench Business (Amendment of Standing Orders) standing in the name of Ms Harriet Harman be hereby passed unamended and the Standing Orders be amended accordingly."
	The effect would be to end this debate now, to pass the Standing Order, and to allow us to get on with it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. In the circumstances, I am afraid that, at this stage, I am not prepared to accept a manuscript amendment to a motion that has previously been tabled.

Nick Brown: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No.36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
	 The House divided: Ayes 238, Noes 36.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Main Question put accordingly.
	 The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 314, Noes 49.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Ordered,
	That the following provisions shall have effect-
	 Sittings on 7 and 8 April: general
	1. At the sittings today and tomorrow-
	(1) any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour, and shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House;
	(2) any Lords Amendments or Lords Message in respect of any Bill may be considered forthwith without any further Question being put;
	(3) Standing Orders Nos. 83D to 83H and 83I(2), (3) and (6) (conclusion of proceedings, &c.) shall apply to proceedings to be taken in accordance with this Order (but with the omission of Standing Orders Nos. 83D(2)(c) and 83E(2)(c));
	(4) notices of Amendments, new Clauses or new Schedules to be moved in Committee on any Bill may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time; and
	(5) Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.
	 Wednesday 7 April
	2. At today's sitting the following business shall be brought to a conclusion (unless already concluded) at the time after its commencement shown in brackets at the end of each sub-paragraph-
	(1) proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Bribery Bill [ Lords] (one hour);
	(2) Committee of the whole House and remaining proceedings on the Northern Ireland Assembly Members Bill [ Lords] (one hour);
	(3) proceedings on the Motion in the name of Secretary Alan Johnson relating to the draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2010 (one hour);
	(4) proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Debt Relief (Developing Countries) Bill (one hour);
	(5) any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the bringing in of an Appropriation Bill, presentation and First Reading of any Bill brought in in pursuance of that Motion and remaining proceedings on any such Bill, to which Standing Order No. 56 (Consolidated Fund Bills) shall apply (forthwith);
	(6) Second Reading and remaining proceedings on the Finance Bill (three hours); and
	(7) Committee of the whole House and remaining proceedings on the Digital Economy Bill [ Lords] (two hours).
	3. Proceedings on any Lords Amendments or Lords Message in respect of any Bill which are taken at today's sitting shall be brought to a conclusion (unless already concluded) one hour after their commencement.
	4. Paragraph 2(3) shall have effect notwithstanding Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents).
	5. Paragraph 2(6) shall have effect notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the intervals between stages of a Bill brought in upon Ways and Means Resolutions.
	6. If the Finance Bill is read a second time, it shall stand committed to a Committee of the whole House and the House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.
	7. If, on the conclusion of proceedings in Committee on the Northern Ireland Assembly Members Bill [ Lords], the Finance Bill or the Digital Economy Bill [ Lords], the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
	8. At today's sitting, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Messages from the Lords have been received and any Committee to draw up Reasons has reported.
	 Thursday 8 April
	9. At tomorrow's sitting proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 (Amendment) Bill shall be brought to a conclusion (unless already concluded) one hour after their commencement.
	10. Proceedings on any Lords Amendments or Lords Message in respect of any Bill which are taken at tomorrow's sitting shall be brought to a conclusion (unless already concluded) one hour after their commencement.
	11. At tomorrow's sitting, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House before a Message has been received from the Lords Commissioners.
	12. On Thursday 8 April there shall be no sitting in Westminster Hall.
	 General
	13. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
	14. The Order made on Friday 12 March 2010 that the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 (Amendment) Bill be considered on Friday 23 April 2010 shall be discharged; and, notwithstanding the practice of the House which forbids the bringing forward of an Order of the Day, the Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee, shall be considered tomorrow.
	15. A reference in this Order to proceedings on or in respect of a Bill includes a reference to proceedings on any Money Resolution, Ways and Means Resolution or Order of Consideration Motion in relation to those proceedings.
	16. The Speaker may not arrange for a debate to be held in accordance with Standing Order No. 24 (emergency debates) at today's sitting, or at tomorrow's sitting, before the conclusion of the proceedings at that sitting to which this Order applies.
	17. If today's sitting continues after 10.30 am on Thursday 8 April, this Order shall have effect as if any reference to the sitting on Thursday 8 April were a reference to today's sitting.

Bribery Bill [ Lords]

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

Clause 10
	 — 
	Consent to prosecution

Jonathan Djanogly: I beg to move amendment 1, page 6, line 28, leave out paragraphs (a) to (c) and insert 'the Attorney General'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 2, page 6, line 33, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert 'the Attorney General'.
	Government amendment 7.

Jonathan Djanogly: Under the existing law, prosecutions for bribery cannot be commenced without the consent of the Attorney-General. As drafted, the Bill would give that power to the Director of Public Prosecutions, the director of the Serious Fraud Office or the director of Revenue and Customs prosecutions in England and Wales.
	The constitutional position of the Attorney-General, as the individual making prosecution decisions, is enshrined in more than 100 years of parliamentary convention. Our concern remains that if we are to realign the role of the Attorney-General, it should be following a full discussion in the widest context. The Government had a vehicle to allow a full debate on that and many other matters in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill, but they did not make use of it. We remain concerned that this Bill's tweaking of the Attorney-General's role is simply putting off the necessary wider debate on it.

David Howarth: Perhaps this provides the hon. Gentleman with an opportunity to clear up a puzzle that has been on my mind throughout our debates. What is his party's position on the wider debate about the Attorney-General's role?

Jonathan Djanogly: We touched on that in Committee, but from looking at the amendments, I do not believe that it is an appropriate debate to have now.
	We also had concerns, as reflected in amendments 1 and 2, that in delegating powers to the directors of the prosecuting agencies, there was a danger that we would lose the opportunity for parliamentary accountability. We voiced those concerns in Committee and emphasised the lack of accountability that could arise if the directors were the decision-makers rather than the Attorney-General. Those concerns were compounded by the fact the directors themselves could delegate such powers to subordinates in their organisation.
	That latter concern will be partly resolved by Government amendment 7, which we intend to accept. It is intended to ensure that the prosecutorial power in the hands of the directors of the SFO, HMRC and the DPP cannot easily be delegated to others within those organisations. Given that the volume of cases that reach prosecution each year is, I am told, in the region of only 20, and that the Government predict a rise in that number of only some 1.3 cases a year, we do not believe that the delegation of that important power would be appropriate, except in the most limited circumstances.
	However, even with the Government amendment, we could confuse the lines of authority unless care is taken. By that, I mean that we will now have three people fulfilling a role that has previously been occupied by only one-the Attorney-General. With that increase in numbers comes the potential for conflicting prosecution policies to develop. Business and prosecutors can ill afford that if the vital need for certainty and precedent is to be upheld. We have argued that we must drive for consistency and clarity in the Bill so that the parameters of offences are clearly demarcated. Such clarity will help to ensure compliance. Little that we heard in Committee, or from various other sources, suggests that we have yet given adequate thought to the matter or put in place adequate procedures to ensure that overlap does not occur.
	Of course, the matter would have been even more problematic if the directors were able to delegate down the chain of their own organisations, essentially multiplying the number of prosecutorial policies that could be followed. The Government have therefore gone some way to removing our fears through their amendment. We heard from the Minister in Committee that protocols now exist between the directors and the Attorney-General that govern the accountability of their decision making, and we will have to see how those protocols work. Although the Government amendment strengthens the position by preventing the decision-making powers from being passed down the chain, diluting accountability further, we feel that it may not go far enough.
	I end by confirming that ensuring that we have a clear and workable uniform prosecution policy across the three organisations will be a priority for a Conservative Government.

David Howarth: It is a shame that the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) was not able to answer my question about the overall position of the Attorney-General, because it is important to have that clear. It is why I oppose amendment 1.
	My view-I wanted to express it during the debates on the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill but the relevant amendments were not reached-is that the Attorney-General should not have a direct role in prosecution decisions about whether individual people are prosecuted across the board, not just in the area in question but in all areas. That originally appeared to be the Government's position, but for reasons that remain obscure because we did not have a proper debate, the Government moved away from that position and moved instead simply to having a non-legally enforceable protocol between the Attorney-General and the three directors whom the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
	One question that remains is how that protocol will apply, because assuming that Government amendment 7 is agreed to, the Attorney-General will still have a superintendence power over the director of the SFO. To make it absolutely clear, in the case of the SFO, that power applies not just to decisions on whether to prosecute but to decisions on whether to investigate. It is much broader than the power over the other directors. It was in that regard that all the trouble broke out about the BAE Systems case. The use of that power was threatened- although in the end it was technically never used-to induce the director of the SFO to call off the investigation of the BAES company's activities in Saudi Arabia with regard to the al-Yamamah case. That problem remains.
	Amendment 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Huntingdon, would make the situation worse. It would replace superintendence with a direct decision-making power over investigations. I say to him-he knows this, as we discussed it in Committee-that that position has been fundamentally questioned internationally by the OECD and by respected international non-governmental organisations such as Transparency International. Confidence in the independence of a prosecution system is absolutely crucial to the main task of the Bill, which is to restore this country's reputation as one that fights corruption. That reputation has been tarnished by the events concerning the dealings of BAES in Saudi Arabia. If we go down his route, we will not succeed in restoring this country's reputation; we will continue with the present situation, in which we are slipping down the league, in terms of our international standing in the fight against corruption. However, it sounded like he was going to withdraw his amendment in favour of the Government amendment, which I hope is the case, because his amendment would be very damaging.
	I turn briefly to the Government amendment. To paraphrase Douglas Adams, this amendment is mostly harmless. As the hon. Gentleman explained, it states that in cases where the director's discretion is engaged, the decision should be taken personally, as far as is practically possible, rather than delegated. As he said, at the moment, the number of cases concerned is quite small, so, in present circumstances, no great practical difficulty would be imposed on a director by the Government amendment.
	I have one concern, however, about what will happen if there is an increase in the amount of work being done in this area. We all hope that an increase in work is not necessary because the Bill, when passed, will deter those who seek to make or receive bribes from doing so. However, it seems that there is a risk. One of the purposes of the Bill is to clarify the law, and it does that, which is why it is a good Bill and I support it. When passed, however, it might have one of two effects: it might make clearer to potential offenders what they should not do and result, therefore, in their not doing it, or-this is quite possible, and is part of the intention-it might make it easier for prosecutors to get a case together and bring it against offenders. If that is the route we take, we will end up with more cases, and I have a slight doubt about whether it is plausible in the longer term to use a director's personal discretion if there are 10 times more cases than now. However, with that caveat, I am happy not to oppose the Government amendment and very much urge the hon. Member for Huntingdon to withdraw amendment 1. If he does not, I shall oppose it.

Claire Ward: We had a good opportunity in Committee to debate the important issues relating to consent to prosecution. The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) argued in Committee, as he has done here, that the offences under the Bill are sufficiently serious to justify vesting responsibility for consenting to a prosecution to the Attorney-General rather than to the director of the relevant prosecuting authority.
	Under existing prevention of corruption Acts, consent to prosecution is given by the Attorney-General, but those Acts were passed a century or more ago when there was no Director of Public Prosecutions or Serious Fraud Office. We are repealing those outdated Acts and starting with a clean sheet. In doing so, it is right and proper that we consider objectively whether consent to prosecution should be given by the Attorney-General or by the director of the relevant prosecuting authority. We have a choice that our predecessors did not have in 1889 and 1906.
	The offences in the Bill will cover a wide range of conduct. I agree that some will be very serious, but others will be less so. On any objective examination of the issue, the offences in this Bill are not ones that require the Attorney-General's consent. To the extent that any given case engages issues of national security, the Attorney-General's superintending powers are such as to enable her to intervene. The hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) is correct to highlight that.
	I accept, however, that the question of whether to consent to a prosecution for one of the offences in the Bill can give rise to more difficult and sensitive considerations than is normally the case. For this reason, I see an argument for special arrangements to apply in this instance. Government amendment 7 would therefore require that the function of consenting to a prosecution must be exercised personally by the director of the relevant prosecuting authority, and a director would not be able to delegate the function to other prosecutors.
	That said, of course we need to make some provision for the function to be exercised where the director is unavailable-for example, if the director was incapacitated or out of the country for a considerable number of days. The amendment therefore enables the DPP, the director of the Serious Fraud Office and the director of Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office to nominate another person to act when the director is unavailable. In the case of the DPP for Northern Ireland, the amendment preserves the position whereby the deputy director has all the powers of the DPP, but neither the director nor deputy director will be able to delegate the consent function under the Bill to another person.
	I welcome the comments by the hon. Member for Huntingdon that he is looking favourably upon Government amendment 7 and the similar views expressed by the hon. Member for Cambridge on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. We believe that the amendment is an equitable middle way on the issue, and on that basis I commend it to the House.

Jonathan Djanogly: My comments and those of the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) reflect what we believe is a need for a wider debate on the role of the Attorney-General, but I must say to him that today is not the time or place for such a debate. I say to the Liberal Democrats that, just because the OECD and other states do not have an Attorney-General, or do not like the idea of having one, does not, to my mind, make the role of the Attorney-General redundant. I say to the Minister as well that, just because the Attorney-General has been there for 100 years, does not mean that the role is redundant. However, given where we are in the parliamentary timetable, we have decided not to request a Division on amendments 1 and 2, and we will be supporting the Government on amendment 7. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	 Amendment made: 7, page 6, line 35, leave out subsections (3) to (5) and insert-
	'(3) No proceedings for an offence under this Act may be instituted in England and Wales or Northern Ireland by a person-
	(a) who is acting-
	(i) under the direction or instruction of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Director of the Serious Fraud Office or the Director of Revenue and Customs Prosecutions, or
	(ii) on behalf of such a Director, or
	(b) to whom such a function has been assigned by such a Director,
	except with the consent of the Director concerned to the institution of the proceedings.
	(4) The Director of Public Prosecutions, the Director of the Serious Fraud Office and the Director of Revenue and Customs Prosecutions must exercise personally any function under subsection (1), (2) or (3) of giving consent.
	(5) The only exception is if-
	(a) the Director concerned is unavailable, and
	(b) there is another person who is designated in writing by the Director acting personally as the person who is authorised to exercise any such function when the Director is unavailable.
	(6) In that case, the other person may exercise the function but must do so personally.
	(7) Subsections (4) to (6) apply instead of any other provisions which would otherwise have enabled any function of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Director of the Serious Fraud Office or the Director of Revenue and Customs Prosecutions under subsection (1), (2) or (3) of giving consent to be exercised by a person other than the Director concerned.
	(8) No proceedings for an offence under this Act may be instituted in Northern Ireland by virtue of section 36 of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 (delegation of the functions of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland to persons other than the Deputy Director) except with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland to the institution of the proceedings.
	(9) The Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland must exercise personally any function under subsection (2) or (8) of giving consent unless the function is exercised personally by the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland by virtue of section 30(4) or (7) of the Act of 2002 (powers of Deputy Director to exercise functions of Director).
	(10) Subsection (9) applies instead of section 36 of the Act of 2002 in relation to the functions of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland and the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland under, or (as the case may be) by virtue of, subsections (2) and (8) above of giving consent.'.- (Claire Ward.)
	 Third Reading

Claire Ward: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	This Bill will bring about a much-needed overhaul of our criminal law as it applies to bribery. With the Bill on the statue book, we can be proud that United Kingdom law in this area will provide a benchmark for other countries, and with it this country will set the gold standard-I used that term in Committee-for our international comparators. The Bill will help to promote high ethical standards in business and public life, in this country and abroad, and will send a clear message that bribery in all its manifestations will not, and should not, be tolerated.
	The Bill will be good for business; often commercial organisations bear the burden of the added costs of doing business in countries where bribery is prevalent. The Bill will also be good for developing countries by helping to ensure that aid and trade benefits those whom it is intended to benefit, and not corrupt officials. The Bill will be good for this country's international reputation, by demonstrating our ongoing commitment to upholding high standards of probity in business and public life. Finally, the Bill will be good for Parliament, demonstrating the value of pre-legislative scrutiny in forging a broad consensus for reform. The Bill has taken a considerable time finally to reach this point, but I believe that it has achieved a broad consensus across the House and that, in reaching that consensus, this House has produced a Bill that is worthy of setting that gold standard.
	I want to take this opportunity to thank all those, particularly in the business sector, who have been available for discussion and to ensure that we had an opportunity to get the Bill right. I also want to thank Opposition parties for their co-operation-for the most part-and those of my officials who have ensured the smooth progression of the Bill. I am grateful to hon. Members for helping us to build what has generally been a consensus, which has now brought the Bill to the threshold of Royal Assent. I am proud, as the Member of Parliament for Watford and as a Minister, to have brought the Bill through to Royal Assent. On that basis I commend it to the House.

Jonathan Djanogly: Bribery is a crime that undercuts competitiveness, derails honest companies and distorts the marketplace. Those who bribe and those who are bribed, whether in commercial organisations or governmental institutions, are thereby diminished by their actions, such that their legitimacy is called into question and the confidence of consumers and the public is weakened. Bribery also undermines the societies in which bribes are made.
	With this Bill, Parliament is no longer accepting the excuse of local practice; rather, it is tying our flag to the highest levels of intentional probity. This is welcomed by the Conservatives. However, it is clear that in recent years, under this Labour Government's watch, the UK has fallen behind the standards of combating bribery that we have seen in other western countries, and our reputation has not been improved as a result. Conservatives therefore fully back the Bill and, in particular, are pleased that its implementation will finally make the UK compliant with the 1997 OECD anti-bribery convention. Notwithstanding our unhappiness with the delayed process, we have supported the Bill throughout the course of its journey through Parliament.
	Without doubt, the outstanding feature of the Bill has been the delay in its arrival. Plans to update and rework our patchwork of antiquated laws have been mooted since the mid-1990s. As far back as 1998, the Law Commission reviewed the UK's corruption laws and formulated a draft Bill that was designed to replace all or parts of the existing relevant legal provisions on corruption and, at the same time, incorporate the common law offence of bribery. What followed was an almost pantomime-like to-ing and fro-ing by the Government when, until recently and in the dying days of this Parliament, we were presented with this Bill. The unacceptable rush that we faced to push the Bill through, in only a few weeks, is hardly an example of thoughtful or effective government.
	The Bill before us today is largely based on a set of proposals developed by the Law Commission, in its 2008 report entitled "Reforming Bribery", which has subsequently been reviewed in this House and the other place. The debate in the other place focused mainly on the legal aspects of the Bill, while we attempted in Committee to stress test the practical application of certain provisions in the Bill. The sum total is a Bill that we generally think is considered and well thought out. It is a Bill that I hope will provide a coherent and comprehensive framework of criminal law-one that makes it abundantly clear that bribery has no place in this country and that it will not be tolerated in our commercial or other dealings with the rest of the world.
	However, as rushed as the Bill has been, it is vital that it should be implemented only after full consultation with business and the preparation of appropriate guidance. We were pleased to receive the Minister's assurances on that point in Committee. Although we have decided not to move further amendments, providing for a business advisory service, this is certainly an area that we will wish to explore further in government, even if on a non-statutory basis.

David Howarth: The hon. Gentleman will remember from Committee that I thought that he was on to quite a good idea with that proposal, although how it would work is a different question. However, will he go further and take up the points, which I was sorry to see him take up in Committee in the way that he did, about facilitation payments and other forms of bribery that have euphemistic names?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hate to intervene on the hon. Gentleman so late in his career in this House, but he is inviting the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) to go outside the scope of the Third Reading debate.

Jonathan Djanogly: I take your advice on such matters, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	We welcome the Government amendment today, which will ensure that the prosecutorial power held in the hands of the directors of the Serious Fraud Office and Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, and the Director of Public Prosecutions cannot easily be delegated to others in those organisations. We did not believe that the delegation of that important power would be appropriate in all but the most limited circumstances.
	The debate that has been had on the Bill has shone a light on the extent to which improper behaviour can so easily pervade business affairs. In an international context, it seems that the old adage, "When in Rome", has applied all too readily to acts of bribery in foreign lands. The Bill will place the UK at the head of a groundswell of international opinion that states that such behaviour will not be permitted; yet Conservatives believe that this should be seen only as the beginning, and not as the end of the process. The Bill is but one weapon in an arsenal to arm the UK in the fight against corruption. It will provide a framework of offences, but it will not, in itself, action anti-corruption measures. The Bill will not, in itself, issue prosecutions, create a healthy modern corporate culture or ensure that British companies are not undermined internationally by corrupt foreign competitors. In recent weeks the SFO has publicly announced cases in which it is investigating alleged acts of corruption. It must be hoped that the Bill will give the SFO and other prosecutors in future the necessary clarity to increase those investigations.
	We decided not to move our amendments to provide for an annual strategy report, but the proper allocation of resources, and the monitoring of the Bill's implementation and development over the coming years will be important to ensure that it is up to the challenge of ensuring that the UK meets and beats global corruption in a way that has been seriously lacking during Labour's time in government. There is a large corporate responsibility role for business in playing its part too, and the next Conservative Government look forward to working with business on implementing this important agenda for Britain.

David Howarth: I, too, very much welcome the Bill. The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) is right to say that it has taken a long time to reach this stage, although he is not right to say that the Bill has been particularly rushed, given the vast amount of discussion about previous versions of the reform, both in the Joint Committee of both Houses and in the other place. Although some Bills in the wash-up have been ill-served by the process, I am not particularly concerned about the amount of scrutiny that this Bill has had. We have come out with a good Bill.
	The hon. Gentleman is also right that the most important purpose of the Bill is to restore this country's reputation, which was affected badly by some recent bribery cases. It remains to be seen whether the Government-whichever Government we have after the election-will still be fully committed to the fight against bribery. Using the tools that the Bill provides, it will be easier for prosecutors to build their cases, but they will be able to do so only if the Government-whoever they are-provide them with the resources that they need. However, it remains the case that the Government currently do not fund the SFO directly for its corruption work. Rather, the SFO is using resources from other parts of its funding to take that work forward. That must change. Equally, it is not right for the SFO to have to ask the Government for case-by-case funding-that is a constitutional matter that needs to be changed-although the underlying fact is that there will be an improvement for the SFO under the terms of the Bill.
	The old law was extremely confusing. The idea that, in some circumstances, possibly-it was never entirely clear-a principal agent relationship needed to be established before a bribery offence could be proven always seemed entirely unjustified to people in the field. In fact, that is why there were many cases in which it was stated that that relationship was not required. The Bill makes it entirely clear that the old law relating to principal and agent has gone, whatever doubts there might have been about it, and that new, clear definitions of bribery have now been included in the law.
	That is the first good thing that the Bill does. The second is to introduce an offence of bribing a foreign official, which this country-unlike many others around the world-has hitherto lacked. The provision is drafted in such a way as to make it clear that it is the standards of this country that count. Under the terms of the Bill, it will not be possible to say that we can bribe people because it is okay to do so in another culture. That will not be allowed. The standards that will apply are not vague cultural standards; they will be the written law of another state. There was some debate in Committee about whether businesses would be able to follow this part of the Bill, but I am sure that they will be able to do so. It will be their responsibility to ensure that they are complying with the law of the other state, with whose public officials they are dealing.
	I very much welcome the Bill. In some of the debates, I was dismayed by the stance being taken by businesses. I understand their worries, but, in the interests of the reputation of this country and of British business, it would not be right-or even profitable-to question this country's position on the fight against bribery. In the relationship between the next Government, whoever they are, and business, I hope that the people in power will make it absolutely clear to business that its position will not be tolerated if it is likely to undermine the provisions of the Bill, which I am glad to support.

William Cash: I strongly support the Bill, but I would like to make one point that relates to a Bill that I introduced a couple of years ago: the International Development (Anti-corruption Audit) Bill. I speak as the chairman of several all-party groups on matters relating to the third world and developing nations, including Uganda and Kenya, and to the sanitation of water. At that time, I had a lot of discussions with people from the National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee and the Department for International Development. It emerged that there was a problem elsewhere in the world, and I know that this Bill addresses that problem, as does the OECD report.
	I wonder, however, whether there will be sufficient sanctions in place for those who engage in bribery and corruption in third-world countries and elsewhere. This is not just a problem for the third world; it is found in the European Union and all other parts of the world. I am worried about what might happen if we do not have a sufficient degree of sanction in relation to the aid that we give, in terms of any restrictions that might be imposed after a warning has been given. If a Government have been given an opportunity to correct their behaviour and they simply do not do so, we might be left with a problem.
	We can deal with this issue as a matter of domestic law here in the UK, and I know that the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses and other organisations have been engaged in consultations with the Minister about how the guidance will operate. These problems will, however, have a serious impact, because so much of this goes on in those countries where the aid money does not reach the people who really need it. At that level, it is essential that the provisions in the Bill relate to what goes on in the countries concerned. If we cannot stop the corruption happening there by using our powers under the International Development Act 2002-which could be amended-I do not think that we will be able to solve the problem.
	Perhaps it will never be possible for the whole problem of bribery and corruption to be solved; it has been going on since the world began. The fact is, however, that the Bill does not go quite far enough in tackling the inability of those people to receive the money that is intended for their benefit. The other side of the coin is the necessity to stimulate self-help and enterprise, thereby building up the economies of those countries.
	I have had discussions with the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) and others who deal with those countries that are prone to bribery and corruption as a way of life. I have also discussed these matters with Transparency International, and with the Global Infrastructure Anti-Corruption Centre, and I have no doubt that they have what the House of Commons Library note describes as
	"impressive anti-bribery strategies on their websites",
	but I am not convinced that we have grappled with this enough. I do not think that we have quite got there, although I do support the Bill.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

Northern Ireland Assembly Members Bill [ Lords]

Considered in Committee

[Sir Alan Haselhurst  in the Chair]

Clause 1
	 — 
	Salaries and allowances

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Paul Goggins: There are only three clauses to this small Bill, and clause 1 contains the key provisions. Subsection (3) amends section 47 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to enable the Northern Ireland Assembly to delegate the determination of salaries and allowances to an outside body. That is expressly forbidden by the current legislation. The Speaker of the Assembly has confirmed that, after Royal Assent, legislation will be introduced in the Assembly and a new system put in place for setting allowances and salaries after the next Assembly elections in May 2011.
	Subsection (5) reflects amendments made in another place and ensures that, if a Member of the Assembly receives a salary as a Member of Parliament or as a Member of the European Parliament, they will not receive any salary as a Member of the Assembly. This is seen as a step along the road to ending dual mandates in Northern Ireland. The other subsections in clause 1 are largely technical and consequential, and I hope that the whole House will continue to give the Bill the support that it gave on Second Reading.

Laurence Robertson: We welcome the Bill. We have had various discussions on clause 1, which, as the Minister says, contains most of the meat of the Bill. We welcome the fact that the Northern Ireland Assembly is to gain the competence to set up a body for the independent setting of salaries and allowances. This will bring it more into line with what happens in Scotland and Wales.
	We are also pleased that the Government met us halfway on the second part of the Bill, which deals with preventing anyone who is a parliamentarian elsewhere from receiving a full salary in the Assembly. It is important to move towards the end of double-jobbing, and we feel that it would be better to achieve that through consensus.
	We have three basic objections. The money side of the matter, which the Bill addresses, is perhaps the least important, but it is none the less an important matter. There is also the question of whether people who are elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly can spend sufficient time in this place, as the work here becomes more onerous by the day. I am sure that it does in the Assembly as well, and it is difficult, if not impossible, to be in two places at once.

William Cash: Does my hon. Friend concede that in the context of devolution in the United Kingdom, it is inevitable and necessary to have people who are representative of both the devolved Assembly, particularly with its enhanced powers and responsibilities, and of this House? Does he accept that it would not be inconsistent-in principle, at any rate, and I am not speaking for anybody else-to say that if people are doing two jobs, which is always more onerous, and doing them efficiently, there is something odd about not giving them the status of being paid for both jobs, even if it is something less than they might have expected?

Laurence Robertson: I understand my hon. Friend's point. As I say, the money side is probably not the issue that concerns us most of all. Over the last few years, the Minister and I have worked together on many Committees, not only on primary legislation but on Statutory Instrument Committees upstairs, and sometimes they have clashed with meetings of the Assembly. I think that 15 of the 17 Northern Ireland Members of Parliament also sit in the Northern Ireland Assembly, which has meant that they have not always been able to be present in Committee. I found that particularly difficult. The people with experience of and real expertise about life in Northern Ireland are the people who live there, but if they are in the Assembly and cannot physically get to Westminster, it creates a difficulty, about which we are concerned.
	There is a further point about what has come to be called double-jobbing. There is potential for a conflict of interest. Is it right for people to sit in this House and make rules and regulations for the running of the Northern Ireland Assembly if they actually sit in that Assembly?
	We support the Bill as far as it goes, but we would have preferred it to go a little further in certain respects. We recognise that parliamentary time has become extremely short and that the Government see this as a small, but important, Bill. As such, we are happy to support it.

Alistair Carmichael: I do not intend to detain the House for long. As far as the provisions on the regulation of expenses for the Assembly are concerned, there has never been any contention among the parties. In that respect, clause 1 is wholly unremarkable.
	In common with the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), I would have preferred the provisions on double-jobbing to have gone a little further. It is a mark of the maturity of devolution in Northern Ireland, as well as in Wales and Scotland, that we can now countenance that. It is an issue that we should approach with rather greater confidence than we have apparently done. That said, the compromise we have achieved-compromise in the sense that everybody gets what nobody wants-is a workable staging post that should accelerate the withering on the vine of double-jobbing

William Cash: On what the hon. Gentleman described rather pejoratively as double-jobbing, and in the context of the constitutional arrangements between ourselves and the Assemblies he mentioned, I am sure that he recognises that if we are to have anything other than complete independence, some functions will overlap-foreign policy, defence and so forth. It is all part of a continuous process and integrated involvement, so it is not double-jobbing: it is one job, which is to represent people in each of those places. Does he agree that that is not double-jobbing, but doing the job properly?

Alistair Carmichael: I fear that the hon. Gentleman has perhaps never quite come to terms with the full implications of the devolutionary settlement. It is double-jobbing because there are two jobs. There is overlap between statutory functions, and speaking as a Scottish Member here since 2001, I am intimately acquainted with those areas. Energy policy provides a good example of where there is a substantial overlap. The way to address those areas is through meaningful and effective co-operation between MPs, MEPs, MLAs, MSPs and so forth. We should not and cannot address the overlap by having people in more than one place at the same time. When important business is to be considered here, but equally important, albeit different, business is to be considered in Belfast, Cardiff or Edinburgh, that overlap simply cannot be addressed, irrespective of the amount of good will or effective joint working. In setting up a devolved Assembly, as this House has done, we have to accept that, although the work previously done by one person is now being done by two, it is no longer one job, but two jobs.
	In that regard, I entirely endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, whose analysis is to be commended. At risk of breaking the consensus that has been the hallmark of these proceedings, I merely observe in passing that I wish that his analysis was shared by his colleagues in the Scottish Parliament, two of whom, for reasons unknown to me, appear to be determined to continue double-jobbing if they are successful in being re-elected to this House. Occasionally, with double-jobbing, there come double standards.

Peter Robinson: I want to touch on the two points referred to by the Minister. Setting up a body to determine Assembly Members' pay and expenses would not have required the Sewel convention, because the Assembly has been crying out for permission to have a body carry out that work. It will have the support of all the parties in the Assembly as it moves forward. Indeed, they are waiting for this legislation to enable them to proceed with their own legislation. I believe that this will be widely supported not just in the Assembly, but in Northern Ireland as a whole.
	I wish we were dealing with a Bill that took on the issue of double-jobbing. There is a lot of double-speak on this issue when it is suggested that if we have a job outside the House of Commons, whether it be at the Bar, a directorship or whatever, it amounts to great experience. I recall the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) speaking to the Ulster Unionist conference and railing against double-jobbing. I decided to go on the internet to check what double-jobbing he might have been involved in. My computer printer ran out of paper before I could get to the end of the list, yet he was lecturing the people of Northern Ireland on why they should end double-jobbing. This is not double-jobbing, but simply attempting to stop dual mandates.
	The House needs some understanding of why there was such a significant occurrence of dual mandates in respect of Westminster and the Northern Ireland Assembly. It was the view of all parties in Northern Ireland-at least those who could get Members elected to this House-that the experience of Members who had been in the House of Commons was worthwhile in order to ensure that the Assembly had the very best chance of succeeding. They wanted such experience to train-I do not use the term pejoratively-Members coming in to that level of elected service for the first time. It necessarily arose because people wanted to use such experience to ensure that the Assembly's life would not be a short one and that its business could be carried out in the best of fashions.
	Secondly, some who might have had the Assembly as their first option-there were a number of them-had some doubt about the length of the Assembly's life. It was a bold move to set up the Assembly under those circumstances, when there was no certainty as to whether it would continue. Many Members thus wanted to hold on to their two positions until there was greater certainty. Those were the two reasons for the introduction of dual mandates, which was done with the best of motives.
	As is made clear in the Library's research paper on the Bill, we intended to phase out dual mandates by the end of the next Parliament, but to do so gradually and progressively. The first step would be to remove Members of Parliament with chairmanships and ministerial roles-with only two exceptions-so that they would be able to attend Committees and participate in other House of Commons work, as the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) suggested that they should. We always intended-before this became a public issue-to reduce the number of candidates standing for both positions as soon as the Westminster and Assembly elections came around. We have done that, and we wait for other parties to follow our lead. I believe in a system of "one man"-or woman-"one job", so that people can concentrate on every aspect of the work to be done either in this place or in the Assembly.

William McCrea: Before this became an election issue, or an issue in general, did not a number of my right hon. Friend's colleagues indicate their desire to remain in the House of Commons if re-elected, doing one job?

Peter Robinson: Yes. A number of my colleagues made it clear to me that they did not intend to stand for the Assembly again. There are others whose constituency associations have persuaded them to stand for election to Westminster, and who will stand down from the Assembly. They would choose otherwise, but they are responding to the calls of their associations rather than their own desires.
	Clause 1 takes us closer to "one person, one job", and I think that that is right. As for the finances, I do not believe that any of the Members of Parliament who attended the Assembly did so for any financial reason. They always received a considerably reduced amount in any case: I think it was a third of the salary that they would otherwise have received, and after tax deductions and donations to the party, there was nothing left for anyone else. It was never a matter of finance. I cannot see what else it is a matter of in the Bill.
	Although the Bill does not tackle the actual issue of dual mandates, any sensible politician is bound to decide in due course that single mandates are best. My colleagues and I support the Bill without difficulty and without reluctance.

William Cash: I listened with interest to the leader of the Democratic Unionist party, the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson).
	I am concerned about a constitutional question that I have raised before. We will reach a certain point in the devolution process, one that is coming closer in Scotland. We know what the leader of the Scottish National party is saying about independence, and we know that elements of the Welsh Assembly may feel the same. What the right hon. Gentleman said crystallised the process that is evolving. If the dual mandate is removed, which would lead to what he correctly described as "one person for one job", we must start thinking about the concept of one Assembly for one nation.
	That is at the heart of this question. Although there are functions that are reserved, in Scotland and, in this instance, in Northern Ireland, it is becoming difficult to avoid a movement towards complete devolution, which many people would find disagreeable and others would encourage. Movement in that direction is pretty momentous, particularly in the context of Northern Ireland. I have no real knowledge of what the people of Ireland-and those of Northern Ireland in particular-think about it. However, there was a time when we heard the expression "full-hearted consent". Then came the Anglo-Irish agreement, followed by other movements towards greater devolution. A momentous and historic decision has just been made on the devolution of criminal justice, security and the police.
	I sense that at the heart of this debate-

Alan Haselhurst: Order. I sense that we are moving away from the heart of this debate. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that we are debating whether clause 1 should stand part of the Bill.

William Cash: Indeed, Sir Alan. I understand exactly what you have said, and I will do as you will suggest.
	We are moving into a constitutional dimension that needs to be watched with great care. It is possible that at some point in the reasonably near future it will become clear that the issue of what is described as double-jobbing on one hand and as a dual mandate on the other will not go away, and that it has profound implications for the direction in which the devolution process continues to evolve.

Mark Durkan: Let me record my party's support for the Bill, which, as has been said, addresses problems that need to be remedied for the future.
	I think that people appreciate that, given the uncertainties involved in the process on which we embarked with the Good Friday agreement, it was justifiable and appropriate for members of parties to hold mandates in respect of both the Assembly and the House of Commons. Key issues of process were being played out in both places, and there is still some way to go. However, now that the process has become more settled and the institutions of the Good Friday agreement have become well and truly embedded, the public increasingly want their elected representatives to concentrate, in a committed way, on clear mandates and clear roles.
	The Bill takes a step towards reducing the allegation of double-jobbing that attaches to people who hold dual mandates, but it does not fully resolve the issue. It would be a mistake for anyone to believe that the progress represented by the Bill, as a result of amendments made in another place, is in itself an answer to the question of dual mandates. That question remains to be addressed, and parties must make more progress on it. I have taken my own stand and approach, and other parties have taken theirs. The signals have been different, conflicting and confusing at times, which does no credit to the political process, whether it be represented by this Chamber or by the Assembly.
	The Bill's original purpose was to allow the Assembly to establish an independent mechanism for settling the pay and pensions of Assembly Members. That is a matter of consensus and has the agreement of all the Assembly parties. It is not contentious at that level, but it is not unimportant. When the Northern Ireland Act 1998 was passed, it was felt appropriate to give the Assembly control over its own pay and pensions. The Assembly's having control over its own affairs was deemed to be a significant statement of its status, but public attitudes and perceptions of those things have moved on. People now want the Assembly's pay to be settled by truly independent means, and this Bill takes us forward in that.
	I do not wish to detain the Committee any further, Sir Alan, given that the House has many other matters to attend to today. I know that you warned the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) when he was on his journey covering the trajectory of history, but it is always good to have him here participating. His family seem to have something of a Forrest Gump gene that means that they were present at all sorts of interesting and important occasions in British and Irish history, and he is here, yet again, for this debate on the modest but welcome development represented by this Bill.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2
	 — 
	Pensions etc.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Paul Goggins: Clause 2 makes consequential amendments to section 48 of the 1998 Act and covers the payment of pensions and allowances to anyone who has ceased to be a Member of the Assembly or an Assembly office holder. Again, I ask the House to support it.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3
	 — 
	Short title and commencement

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Paul Goggins: Clause 3 provides the short title for the Act, once the Bill has been enacted, and sets out the arrangements for commencement. Again, I ask the House to support it.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause 3 accordingly orde red to stand part of the Bill.
	 The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
	 Bill reported, without amendment.
	 Third Reading

Paul Goggins: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	The Bill will allow the Northern Ireland Assembly to delegate powers on the setting of salaries and expenses for its Members. The Assembly is currently explicitly prevented from doing so under section 47(7) of the 1998 Act, which states that it "may not delegate" such functions. The Bill removes that restriction, thereby enabling the Assembly to confer the functions of setting salaries and allowances for its Members on an independent body. It is expected that the new system will be in place following the Assembly elections in May 2011. The Bill also ensures that if a Member of the Assembly receives a salary as an MP or an MEP, they will not receive any salary as a Member of the Assembly. That is seen by some as a step along the road to ending dual mandates in Northern Ireland, and indeed we took a further step last week when the law in relation to the standing down of district councillors was changed; they will now be replaced by way of a nomination of the party, rather than by way of co-option or by-election.
	Although this is a short Bill containing only three clauses, I wish to thank all Members for the positive contributions that they have made and for the support that the Bill has received from Members from across the House. In conclusion, the Government are introducing this Bill at the request of the Assembly. We do not believe that it would be right to stand in the way of independent control of salaries and allowances in the Assembly, so I commend the Bill to the House.

Laurence Robertson: Conservative Members welcome the Bill, as I said during the clause 1 stand part debate. I thank the Minister and his officials for the open way in which they have approached this Bill. Over the past few years we have dealt with many pieces of legislation in this House, both in the Chamber and upstairs in Committee, and so I also wish to thank him for the way in which he has conducted Northern Ireland business. He has always been very approachable, and he has given us a great deal of help by allowing us access to his officials. I wish also to place on the record my thanks to them.
	As the Minister has said, this brief Bill allows the Northern Ireland Assembly to set up a body to set salaries and allowances, and Conservative Members welcome that move. We also welcome the modest move towards what we see as the beginning of the end of dual mandates. In response to comments made by the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) a few moments ago, may I say that I recognise that in the very early stages of setting up the Assembly, it was important to use the experience of Members of this House by allowing them to sit in the Assembly in order to give it the experience that it needed? I recognise that that was the case then, but things have moved on now. As I have said, if a Conservative Government were to be elected, we would revisit the issue and consider the situation of dual mandates then, for the reasons that I have given.
	The question is not principally about money-it is also about the time that any one person can spend sitting in a very active and important Assembly in Northern Ireland while also sitting in this House and dealing with the very important issues that we have here. We want to avoid any possible conflict of interest between the two jobs.
	As the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) has mentioned, we recently passed some important legislation on Northern Ireland, which means that the policing and criminal justice competence has been handed over to the Assembly. I wish the Assembly well in that respect and in every other aspect that it has to deal with.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Ian Carmichael.

Alistair Carmichael: That is my Ealing comedy alter ego, Sir Alan- [ Interruption. ] Sir Michael, I beg your pardon. I have been called an awful lot worse-worry not.

Patrick Cormack: Sadly, Ian Carmichael's dead.

Alistair Carmichael: Do not take me down that road.
	May I also place on record my support, and that of my party, for this Bill, as well as our appreciation of the manner in which it has been handled by the Minister, his officials and the other Front Benchers? As we are now in the tail end of this Parliament, may I also place on record our appreciation for the good working relationship that we Front Benchers from the United Kingdom parties, if I can style us as that, have always been able to have with representatives from the Northern Ireland parties.
	I look back, having been involved on and off with Northern Ireland business in this House since about 2003, at some of the difficult times that we have gone through. It has not always been easy and the reasons for that are often historical, but I think that the fact that we have been able to get to where we are today is a significant achievement, in which we should all derive a measure of pride and satisfaction. We have collectively been able to bring Northern Ireland to a place that is much healthier today than it has ever been before.
	The Bill is largely uncontentious. Those parts that deal with pay and rations for the Assembly are eminently sensible and little can be added to them. The question of dual mandates-at the risk of using the more pejorative term of double-jobbing-is still a work in progress. It is well known that the early involvement of people who had experience of business in this place was an important stabilising factor but, as I said in the clause stand part debate, we now have sufficient security, stability and confidence to move on from that. I hope that, if we are involved in a more organic process with gradual withering on the vine, this is one step that will accelerate that process.

Peter Robinson: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that there is one issue that flows from what the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman said about what might happen in the next Parliament? There is the ability to distort electoral performance. Clearly, a higher profile Member of Parliament will gain more votes for a party in the Assembly election. If we therefore allow them to stand for both Westminster and the Assembly-particularly those who do not actually come to Westminster-we distort electoral outcomes.

Alistair Carmichael: Yes. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. I have seen that operating in all three jurisdictions that have devolved Assemblies. Inevitably, as power is handed down-that is, of course, the process of devolution, as power is handed down from Westminster to other Assemblies and Parliaments-there will be developments that will keep going. We should be open-minded enough to learn from experience. That sort of use-let us not go so far as to call it a misuse or an abuse-of the facilities of one Assembly or Parliament to get one's foot in the door to become a Member of another is something that we will probably need to address and that Members of the devolved Assemblies and Parliaments will want to be addressed. If we, here, are part of a process that is about building stability and growing maturity, it should be in the interests of those Assemblies and Parliaments to get themselves to a point at which being a Member of that Assembly or Parliament is sufficiently significant to satisfy people and is not seen as a stepping stone towards this place or any other.

William Cash: I am slightly troubled by this line of argument, because the budgets for the respective Parliaments are paid for by the taxpayers of the United Kingdom. It seems somewhat incongruous to focus on what the hon. Gentleman describes as double-jobbing, but what others might regard as an important dual mandate, given that the money is not being provided by the people for whom he would want exclusively to legislate, but only insofar as devolved functions are concerned. There is a serious constitutional issue here that he is completely avoiding.

Alistair Carmichael: No, I am not avoiding it. Indeed, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have devoted a lot of my life in the past three years to addressing exactly that point-particularly in relation to the powers of the Scottish Parliament in determining its own budget-through the work of the Calman commission and by working with the Conservative party. That is another aspect of the evolving nature of devolution, and it is something that will come with time, maturity and stability.
	On pejorative references, the hon. Gentleman was absent from the Chamber earlier when I talked about the appropriate use of dual mandates. Unfortunately, when I turned to acknowledge him, he was not in his place, having nipped out briefly.

Mark Durkan: Opposition Front Benchers have rightly paid tribute to the Minister and his officials for their work on this necessary Bill, and I want to associate myself with those remarks. It is also appropriate to acknowledge the work of the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly, William Hay-a constituent of mine who will not be voting for me, of course, in the election. The Speaker and the senior officials of the Assembly have worked on the need to provide independent determination in relation to Assembly salaries and pensions. They have engaged cross-party discussions to that end, which is why the Bill has the consensus across the parties in Northern Ireland that it has. I am sure that that was a very welcome point of persuasion for the Minister in taking this Bill forward. It is right for the record here and elsewhere to pay tribute to the Speaker and to officials in that regard.
	The Bill does not resolve the issue of dual mandates-or double-jobbing or whatever anyone might call it-but it does at least reduce some of the contention and misrepresentation around that issue for those who continue to hold dual mandates for as long as they do. However, that issue needs to be dealt with. I have made my own decision. This Chamber is not where I want to be, as an Irish nationalist and someone who was personally and deeply involved in the negotiation, establishment and implementation of the Good Friday agreement. I really want to pursue my involvement in democratic politics elsewhere, but I have decided that for the next term, because of issues affecting my constituents and because of wider concerns, this is where I need to be, and that is the offer that the electorate will have to make a decision on. However, I believe that we need to get to the point where all elected representatives in Northern Ireland are able to make and offer a clear choice with regard to the mandate that they will pursue.
	In the main, we stand on party tickets. We will not be divorced from parties, so the issues on which there is some overlap between the business of this House and the Assembly-they will sometimes compete with each other and at other times complement each other-can be properly and competently discharged. People can be confident that we now have a settled process in Northern Ireland, with north-south institutions.
	There is one issue that the Minister did not address when we looked at this Bill on previous occasions, which is the question of people getting salaries for sitting in the Assembly and in another chamber. We have dealt with that in respect of this place, but the outstanding issue has to do with the legislation allowing a person to sit in both the Assembly and the Oireachtas. There does not seem to be any bar on that person receiving salaries from both institutions so, for reasons of parity of esteem, equity of treatment and so on, some further adjustment may need to be made.

William McCrea: On behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends, I would like to thank the Minister and his departmental officials for the courtesy that they have shown in taking this legislation through this House.
	I concur with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) in respect of the Speaker and staff of the Assembly. I think that Members of the Assembly will be greatly relieved that there is to be an independent determination of salaries and so on, as they never had any desire to bear that responsibility in the first place. They will be very happy with this outcome.
	I listened carefully to hon. Member for Foyle, and I have to tell him that I am very proud to be in this House. I am very honoured to be part of the UK Parliament and, as a good British Ulsterman, I am certainly proud to be able to represent the good people of South Antrim in this place.
	I listened carefully to the other remarks that the hon. Gentleman made. I do not think that there is anything to stop him going to another place, if that is what he wishes. He appears to feel that being in Her Majesty's Chamber here is a burden, but I know that he will feel very much at home in this United Kingdom Parliament.
	Finally, a certain political party in Northern Ireland became very sensitive about the issue of double-jobbing, but only when it had lost practically all its representation in this House. It got down to one Member, and now it has none at all. Even so, we are delighted that that party has acquired a sensitivity that it certainly did not have in the past, when it represented 12 Northern Ireland seats. It is something that members of that party got sensitive about when the electorate gave the responsibility to the Ulster Democratic Unionist party.
	My party leader has made it clear that we are sensitive to the needs of the people of Northern Ireland. We want them to have the best possible representation, and I hope that my hon. Friends and I will have the opportunity to come back to this great House to represent the good people of Northern Ireland in years to come.

William Cash: I shall be very brief. I am much encouraged by the speeches made by the hon. Members for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea) and for Foyle (Mark Durkan). I know that the latter understands what is at stake, but I got the slight impression-which the hon. Member for South Antrim also picked up-that he might come back through the back door, courtesy of the most extraordinary amendment that was passed some years ago that meant that Members of this House could also be in the Dublin Parliament-the Oireachtas, as I think that we now have to call it.
	That raises one curious anomaly with the dual mandate, but there is another that I want to describe very briefly. It has to do with whether legislative power lies with the devolved Assembly in Northern Ireland. That is still developing and evolving: we are moving towards much greater devolution and even independence, but we are doing so without having regard to where the money comes from. That is another factor that we shall need to consider, as we had to do post-1997 in relation to Scotland.
	The British taxpayer is also the source of money that spills into all parts of the island of Ireland-north or south-from our net contribution to the European Union. It would be remiss of me not to mention that subject, because it raises the question of the relationship between taxation, responsibility and democracy. If the moneys are provided through research, grant in aid, assisted area status and redevelopment grants, a question arises about what the United Kingdom is being expected to do. Members of this Parliament, who represent the taxpayers of the constituencies to which we are about to return, are in effect paying a lot of moneys for important functions that are being devolved in a modern world.
	I leave the House with this thought. There is more and more movement towards greater and greater degrees of responsibility. It is called devolution, but the relationship between responsibility and taxation is important, so there is a constitutional issue at its heart. It is well known that I am great supporter of those in Northern Ireland, and I am conscious of the fact that our taxpayers have to bear the costs of whatever emerges from the EU and is then paid back to us. In that context, the Bill is important because it is obviously something of which Members of the Northern Ireland legislature approve, so I am concerned that we have a coherent structure. Nothing is perfect and nothing can be resolved simply by writing down words-it is a question of the manner in which people come to believe that they can exercise authority through the rule of law in the appropriate manner. I do not want to make too much of a meal of this: I simply believe that we are moving inexorably towards a greater degree not merely of devolution but of political responsibility.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I now have to announce the results of Divisions deferred from a previous day. On the Question relating to children and young persons, the Ayes were 259 and the Noes were 152, so the Question was agreed to.
	On the Question relating to EU strategy on jobs and growth, the Ayes were 254 and the Noes were 158, so the Question was agreed to.

Dangerous Drugs

Alan Campbell: I beg to move,
	That the draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 30 March, be approved.
	If the order is approved, it will bring mephedrone and other cathinone derivatives-a group of so-called legal highs-under the control of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, as class B drugs, from 16 April 2010.
	As required by the Act, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has been consulted, and the control of the drugs fully reflects the council's recommendations. I place on record our thanks to the advisory council for its thorough advice and continuing commitment and work in a very important area. The council's assessment is integral to our ability to respond effectively and in an informed way to the threat posed to our society by emerging harmful drugs.

Keith Vaz: I welcome what the Minister has said so far, and I hope to catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye and contribute to the debate. With the resignation last week of another member of the advisory council, it is right that we re-assert the position that although the council is there to advise, at the end of the day it should be Ministers who make the decision and are prepared to come to the House to defend their decision.

Alan Campbell: As ever, my right hon. Friend speaks wise words. Of course Ministers ultimately decide and advisers advise, but there is a strong relationship between the Home Secretary and the council and its new chair, and we value the advice that is given.

Evan Harris: The Minister describes the current relationship as strong, but recently there have been two resignations, so how many resignations would he anticipate there would be if the relationship were weak?

Alan Campbell: One just has to look at the order, the agreement between the council and the Home Secretary, and what I hope is the widespread opinion in the House and throughout the country to see that when the relationship works well, it works very well indeed. I will not go down the path on which the hon. Gentleman tries to lead me, but if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will listen carefully to his comments because, as ever, he has a great deal to say.
	There is shared concern about the harm that such drugs can do and the pace at which they have become available. Cathinones are stimulants with effects similar to amphetamine. The advisory council has provided its assessments of the risks that those drugs pose after undertaking a full review of their status by examining their use, pharmacology, and physical and societal harm. The harmful effects of the drugs include over-stimulation of the cardiovascular system, which creates a risk of heart and circulatory problems, and over-stimulation of the nervous system, with the consequent risks of fits, agitated and paranoid states, and hallucinations. Mephedrone has been linked with a number of deaths in the UK and one confirmed death of a young girl in Sweden.
	The advisory council advises that the harm posed by such drugs is of a level that justifies their control as a class B drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has rightly waited for advice from his independent expert advisers and, as I said, the Government continue to value scientific advice and remain committed to evidence-based policy making in this area, as elsewhere.

William Cash: It is perfectly true that neither the Minister nor the Home Secretary are trying to avoid their responsibility by accepting the advice that has been given. However, they must acknowledge that they are acting on that advice and accepting the evidence to which the Minister referred. In that context, and in the light of all that we have heard, how on earth could anyone reasonably argue that mephedrone is not something that causes the death of young people and generates all the symptoms that he described? Does he agree that those of us who have campaigned against this drug did so for the very best reasons and that there is no rational or reasonable case for continuing to allow it to remain on the market?

Alan Campbell: Of course that is the reason why we are bringing forward the order. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman and others who have campaigned on this issue. The important advance is that we now have the clear advice from the advisory council, and that is the evidence on which the order is based.
	The advisory council's advice is very much in keeping with our approach to the control of synthetic substances such as synthetic cannabinoids, which were controlled by Parliament in December 2009. We are introducing generic definitions of the drugs. By enshrining a generic definition of cathinone drugs in law, rather than specifying each one individually, we will capture a wide range of cathinone derivatives. As far as we are aware, that is a world first for this group of drugs. A number of such derivatives have already been seen in the United Kingdom including methylone, methadrone and butylone. Our controls also try to deal with future trends and to stop unscrupulous, illicit manufacturers who work for organised criminals and tweak substances to circumvent our laws.
	The enforcement response will initially focus on people who peddle and traffic these harmful drugs, rather than the young people who might be found in possession of them. We do not intend to criminalise young people, but we expect the police to respond proportionately.

Keith Vaz: Britain cannot deal with the problem on its own. Is it not important that we work with our EU partners? Should we not give greater emphasis to the work done by the drugs agency in Lisbon? I am not absolutely certain what that agency does, but surely it offers a way in which the 27 EU countries can work together. If they do not work together, drugs will find a way into the UK.

Alan Campbell: We do work with our colleagues in Europe and, indeed, further afield. What my right hon. Friend says is important, but it is also important that we decide on the way forward for the United Kingdom. My point is that by making the order as we have, and in particular by dealing with a generic family of drugs, we are setting the bar very high and leading the field.

Evan Harris: The Minister says the Government's intention is not to criminalise young people. What is the age cut-off for the criminal offence?

Alan Campbell: I shall come to that in a moment, but let me first finish my point. When talking about criminalisation and the importance of the order, I want it to be clear that after 16 April mephedrone will be an illegal drug; those in possession of it will be breaking the law; if caught, they will face being prosecuted and acquiring a criminal record. Those trafficking these drugs will face a substantial term of imprisonment-for a maximum of 14 years-and, when they have profited from what will be an illegal trade, we will seek to seize their property and other assets under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. We are working closely with the Association of Chief Police Officers and other agencies to develop a comprehensive approach to tackle the sale of these drugs. The Serious Organised Crime Agency and the United Kingdom Border Agency will take effective enforcement action against the criminal gangs that traffic the drugs across our borders.
	As well as bringing the order before Parliament the day after we received advice that the drugs are harmful and dangerous, the Government took a series of other immediate actions. First, to limit the supply of mephedrone, specified other cathinone derivatives and all products containing those drugs, we banned their importation and instructed UKBA officials to seize and destroy shipments of mephedrone at the border, unless the shipment was licensed by the Home Office. UKBA has already seized a number of suspected mephedrone importations as a direct result.
	Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary wrote to local authorities urging them to consider what action they could take under consumer protection legislation when mephedrone is inaccurately advertised as being for use as plant food or bath salts. Police forces and other agencies are contacting head shops and other premises thought to be supplying the drugs to warn them of the ban and to make clear their enforcement powers if suppliers fail to comply with the ban, once it comes into force.
	Legislative control is, of course, only part of the solution. Education is of paramount importance so, thirdly, in respect of our health messages, our drugs information service Frank provides information on cathinones, including mephedrone, with clear information about the risks those substances pose. Frank has already updated leaflets providing advice on mephedrone for young people and parents, which will be available from various sources, including the National Union of Students. Our Crazy Chemist information campaign run in late 2009 included warnings about mephedrone and targeted young people on websites and when they search to purchase legal highs. My hon. Friend the Minister for Schools and Learners has written to all head teachers, providing guidance on dealing with mephedrone in schools. Mephedrone and legal highs will also be included in the new drugs guidance for schools.
	Fourthly, the Department of Health has issued a formal alert through the public health warning system to ensure that all front-line hospital staff, medical staff and drug treatment staff have the most up-to-date information about the harm posed by mephedrone.
	The concern about mephedrone and other cathinone derivatives has been well publicised in recent weeks and users of those drugs should therefore be aware of the changes we are making.
	If the order is approved, the Government will publicise the changes in the law through a Home Office circular, and through the Talk to Frank and drugs.gov.uk websites. Reference to the law change and to health risks relating to the drugs will be included in future Government materials for young people.

Evan Harris: I am not seeking to interrupt the Minister, but I was not sure whether he was going to answer my question. He said it was not his intention to criminalise young people. That implies that under the order there is an age cut-off with regard to the criminalisation of users and people who possess the drug. Will he clarify whether there is an age cut-off, or what he meant by saying that young people would not be criminalised?
	Will the Minister also say what his outcome measure is for deciding whether the policy is a success? What level of use are we talking about? If the level of use becomes lower, will he say that that is good? If it goes up after the order is introduced, will he say that perhaps it was the wrong policy?

Alan Campbell: I will perhaps return to the hon. Gentleman's second point in my closing remarks, if I may. On the point about the enforcement approach taken with young people, one of the important things that we do, in using the law in this way, is send out a very clear message to young people that mephedrone is illegal and does them harm, and is something with which they should not get involved. Those found in possession of an amount for personal use need to be dealt with in a proportionate and appropriate manner. It is, of course, at the local level that the police will make judgments on operational matters, but there is a statutory process for young people under 18, which is set out in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. That offers formal escalation, with referral at any stage to a youth offending team for a substance misuse assessment and appropriate intervention, through treatment or other support. We are not reinventing the wheel; we know how to deal with the issue with regard to other substances. Of course we have learned lessons from that and will apply them in this case.

James Brokenshire: As the Minister will be aware, when cannabis was reclassified as a class B drug, a separate regime was put in place: a fixed penalty ticket can be issued for possession of that drug, even though it is a class B drug. It is the only one in the class B category that has that provision attached to it. Is he suggesting that that will also apply to mephedrone?

Alan Campbell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue, because that is not what I am suggesting at all; that is not our intention. The difference with cannabis is that most experienced police officers can recognise cannabis, as compared with other drugs. They may therefore be able to make a judgment about what an appropriate response is. It might be that a penalty notice is an appropriate response. That is why we explained what we expected to happen when cannabis was reclassified. The difficulty with mephedrone is that it is very difficult to distinguish it from a range of other drugs, so it would not be appropriate in this case to take the route that we went down with cannabis. However, I am grateful for the opportunity to put that on record.
	We will continue to make it clear, particularly to young people, that so-called legal highs cause serious, and sometimes considerable, harm to those who use them, as well as great distress to people's families and friends, and to communities. Our aim is to ensure that everyone, and young people in particular, are well aware of the risks associated with using such drugs. That is why we are absolutely determined to crack down on so-called legal highs. We need to be vigilant and responsive. In particular, we need to tackle those who have no motive but greed, and who have no regard to the harm that they cause. We must ensure that our children know the harms of drugs, and know that even if someone describes them as legal highs, they are not safe. We ask Parliament to approve the order, which we believe will protect the public, and particularly young people, from those dangerous drugs. I commend the order to the House.

James Brokenshire: We support the order. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has given clear advice that mephedrone is a harmful, psychoactive substance and should be classified as a class B drug within the scope of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. It is right that the order should seek to capture the cathinone group, of which mephedrone is one analogue, so that those who manufacture and seek to market those synthetic substances do not simply modify the drug slightly to create a new substance that would fall outside the scope of the controls. Methylone and various other drugs would have been the next problematic substances, as the Minister has said, and it is right that those drugs, as well as mephedrone and the other cathinone analogues, are addressed by virtue of the order.
	However, the issue is the time that it has taken to get to this point and the process that has been followed. It is frankly absurd that the ACMD should have written to the Home Secretary before Christmas, warning of its concerns as to the prevalence and potential harms of these compounds. It would seem that the Home Office knew of this problem months before. Why did not the Government act sooner? Why does it sadly seem to have taken the reporting of the deaths of several young people to finally prompt the Government into action? It should have been possible to develop policy in a measured way, rather than reaching the sudden realisation that there was an issue because of media coverage.
	It has been apparent for some time that there has been an emerging problem with this group of so-called legal highs. It is desperately sad that as many as 25 deaths have been linked to mephedrone in some way, and our thoughts go to the families who have lost loved ones. The question that needs to be considered is whether any of these tragic cases could have been avoided if the Government had acted sooner and a more robust mechanism had been in place for addressing newly emerging psychoactive substances, and if that had been in place, what its effect might be. We should certainly not forget that the Government were also slow to act in responding to GBL. It took the Home Office 18 months to implement the recommendation of the ACMD that the drug should be classified. We need to learn the lessons from these experiences.
	What has been disturbing about mephedrone has been the way in which it has been sold. Rather than being offered by a drug dealer down a dark alley, it has been spuriously marketed on the internet as plant food or fertiliser. As the ACMD has made abundantly clear, this is a drug akin to an amphetamine, and more likely to poison than promote the growth of our petunias. This has been a con, a deception, a spurious device to subvert the medicines control legislation, to suggest that this substance was not for human consumption and therefore not being sold as a drug. It is a despicable deceit, simply aimed at entrapping the unwary. It has also exposed the inadequacies of the system for responding to new and emerging drugs in the internet age.
	Even though we may pass the order, we need a speedier mechanism for addressing public safety issues linked to new drugs intended for human consumption, however they may be falsely marketed. We have called for the introduction of a new temporary classification for a period of up to 12 months for newly emerging problematic substances. During this period, controls on sale, importation and supply could be imposed where public health concerns have been identified. This would also allow a period of expert input and analysis, to be provided in a considered and careful manner, as to whether a formal classification should be applied to the drug. It would also allow for specific public health alerts to be issued in a managed and focused way, without stoking up demand for the new substance, as I fear that the coverage in recent weeks has done in relation to mephedrone.

Brian Iddon: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the UK Drug Policy Commission made a category X proposal some time ago?

James Brokenshire: I am aware of the policy or the promotion of the idea that the hon. Gentleman suggests. The proposal that I am setting out is subtly different in some ways from the proposal that he refers to, although that is certainly helpful in terms of promoting a debate as to how we can respond to the newly emerging psychoactive substances.
	"Frank" was desperately slow to react to mephedrone, and while steps, to which the Minister has referred, have now been taken to promote the appropriate advisories, there should be a speedier way to ensure that advice is available in a more effective manner once a new and problematic substance has been identified.
	More generally, there is also a need for an early-warning mechanism. In its report on mephedrone, the ACMD called for the development of data sets from drug amnesty bins to provide an early warning of emerging trends, which is a sensible suggestion. As part of the follow-through on the order, will the Minister confirm what steps he is taking to advance this proposal? Does he agree that there is a need for a new temporary classification, as we have suggested?
	On the specifics of the order, will the Minister confirm what processes will be adopted to enforce the legislation? He referred to discussions with the Association of Chief Police Officers, but what guidance on the introduction of the order is intended to be issued to police forces? What steps has the Minister taken to ensure that local authority trading standards departments take appropriate action under trade descriptions legislation against those firms and companies marketing mephedrone in an entirely bogus and fraudulent way? He referred to a letter from the Home Secretary, but what follow-through does the Minister envisage? How are efforts being co-ordinated with local police and the Serious Organised Crime Agency to ensure that all appropriate measures are taken to get this drug off the streets once the order becomes effective? He has talked about a strategy, but it would be helpful to understand further what that means in terms of immediate action. What discussions has he had with Ministers in the Department for Communities and Local Government about joined-up enforcement with local authorities?
	As I have said, the use of the internet has been a factor in the sale and distribution of such drugs. What discussions has the Minister had with internet service providers and other web hosting companies about taking down websites that offer to sell these harmful substances? What liability would the internet hosting companies have once they had been put on notice of someone using their online services to market these dangerous drugs? Will such companies have any responsibility to co-operate with law enforcement and other agencies?
	We are aware that some head shops and other dealers have been stockpiling mephedrone in advance of the introduction of the order, and the Minister said that he has written, or that various agencies are writing to, those organisations. Can he confirm that appropriate action will be taken to seize those products at the earliest opportunity to prevent them flowing into illegal drug distribution networks once the order, if the House passes it, becomes law?
	Mephedrone is a synthetic compound designed and created in a laboratory. There have been disturbing reports of chemists in China designing those drugs for use in this country, and of more such drugs being engineered. Can the Minister confirm the veracity of those reports? If they are true, will he ensure that the Foreign Office makes appropriate diplomatic recommendations to those countries that host such facilities? Can he confirm also what measures are being taken to increase the ability of our border agencies to interdict drugs before they enter this country? The Government seem to have downplayed drug seizures, and that is one reason why we believe that we need a proper border police force-to provide greater security and to help reduce the flow of drugs through our porous borders.
	Certain parties and persons outside the House have raised questions about the legality of the order, and some have suggested that we need a three-month consultation period with the European Union before the measure can become effective. Will the Minister confirm that he, like me, is satisfied that that is not the case, and either that the relevant EU directive does not apply to this situation, or that there is an appropriate exemption to ensure that the order is effective and can be effective in a matter of days?
	People have also queried whether the resignation of any members of the ACMD undermines the approval process and the council's advice in support of the order. For the record, can the Minister confirm that that will not impact on the order's effectiveness? He will be aware of the strong indications that many young people have taken the drug thinking that because it was legal it was safe. What public health or media campaigns does he envisage forming part of the order's implementation? In particular, does he acknowledge that simply passing the order this afternoon will be insufficient unless it is backed up by an awareness campaign to highlight the risks and dangers not simply of mephedrone, but of any other legal highs that might subsequently become available?
	Allied to that is the issue of treatment for those who have become addicted to mephedrone. I was speaking to a father of a young man who has become a mephedrone addict. He expressed his frustration at simply not being able to obtain any appropriate advice on the treatment options for his son; how his son had become depressed and was exhibiting other psychological problems; and how he felt powerless to help, because no health professional seemed able to offer a suitable clinical pathway.
	Drug therapists have told me of their surprise at how quickly addictive and problematic behaviour has been identified with mephedrone. People have suggested that it can become particularly addictive because it gives a short-term high, leading to binge drug-taking by some users. What steps is the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse taking to address that apparent gap in provision? What assessment has it made of the types of service that may need to be procured at local level? He has talked about advice and guidance in the health service, but what steps is the Department of Health taking to ensure that GPs and other local health practitioners are receiving suitable training to help meet the needs of patients presenting with clinical symptoms linked to mephedrone addiction?
	Looking ahead, there is a strong suggestion that the napthyl analogue of pyrovalerone may be the next new psychoactive substance to hit the streets and the club scene. There are already reports that NRG-1, as it is being referred to, is being marketed as a mephedrone substitute. The ACMD has said that it intends to
	"review these substances and provide further advice at a later date."
	When does the Minister expect that advice to be forthcoming? In the light of recent experiences, what steps is he taking to ensure that we do not have a rerun of mephedrone with NRG-1?
	More generally, the current situation highlights the relationship between the Government and the ACMD. Whatever the Minister may claim, there has been a serious problem with the ACMD and its ability to function effectively and provide Ministers with much-needed advice since the Home Secretary's inept handling of the sacking of Professor David Nutt and the high-handed way in which he dealt with the AMCD subsequently. That has led to a lengthening line of resignations. Is it not the case that the Home Secretary's actions have caused inertia and damaging delay at the heart of Government drugs policy?
	Eric Carlin, who resigned from the ACMD over the bank holiday weekend, has said that the council is in "deep trouble". Professor Neil McKeganey, the Scottish drugs adviser, has said that
	"the relationship between the ACMD and government has broken down."
	Will the Minister accept that the fracturing of the relationship, breakdown of trust and deep trouble lies entirely at the door of the Home Secretary? We need effective expert advice to inform policy making on drugs. The problems of addiction and multiple substance abuse are complex and multifaceted, and the ACMD has an essential and important role to play.

Keith Vaz: I am sorry to stop the hon. Gentleman in mid-flow. I know that the personality issue and the question of relationships is central to his argument, but is this not an appropriate time to consider the structure of decision making and the distinction between Ministers and advisers? Subject to the general election, he may be on the Government side of the House making decisions on behalf of a future Government, and it is time to examine that structure.

James Brokenshire: The right hon. Gentleman made an important point in an earlier intervention about the relative role of advisers and Ministers, and he made it well. Even if we pass the order this afternoon, there needs to be an assessment of the relationship between the Government and their scientific advisers. We look forward to the publication of the Ormond review, which cannot come a moment too soon. This has been a sorry episode for this increasingly sorry Government.

Evan Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Brokenshire: I will not.
	This episode has come at a time when an effective relationship between the Home Office and its drugs advisers could have facilitated a more effective and speedy response to the emerging harms of legal highs.

Evan Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Brokenshire: Instead we have had disunity, disagreement, resignations and delay.

Evan Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Brokenshire: To quote what is becoming an increasingly-

Evan Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Gentleman has indicated that he is not giving way at the moment.

Evan Harris: Why not?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. He is simply not giving way.

James Brokenshire: To quote what is becoming an increasingly well-worn but entirely apt phrase, we simply cannot go on like this.

Keith Vaz: There is agreement, at least between the two Front Benchers who have addressed the House so far, that the Government have done the right thing in the current circumstances. I will not be sure what the Liberal Democrats' position is until we hear from the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), but there is agreement about the decision that has been taken. I join the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) and the Minister in accepting that it was the right course of action for the Government to take. They acted speedily in respect of the recommendation from the ACMD.
	The decision was speedy in that the report went to the Home Secretary on Monday, and on the same day he decided that the drug would be reclassified. It took the Government only a few hours to make that decision. However, I am concerned about the time it took for the advisory council to get to the position to make that recommendation to the Government. Well done to Ministers and, in the last instance, to the Home Secretary for making the decision quickly, but I am worried about the time it took for the recommendation to come before the Home Secretary. The concerns raised by the Minister, the hon. Member for Hornchurch and others in the House were first brought before Ministers a year ago. Those concerns-about how dangerous the drug was-were raised with the previous Home Secretary. So I praise the Government on their decision, but lament the fact that it took 12 months to get to the position to make it.
	We have to look at how these decisions are made, and the purpose of the ACMD is central to that. The hon. Member for Hornchurch, in an election period, obviously makes hay with the fact that members of the council have been resigning over the past few months. I would be astonished if he did not use that fact for party political advantage in the current climate. Indeed, it is embarrassing that only last week another member resigned. So it is an appropriate time to look at the entire structure of how these decisions are made. As I said to the Minister in my brief intervention, in the end it has to be up to Ministers to come before the House, and to make and defend such decisions, and they must rely on expert advice.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) is, of course, much more experienced than probably anyone else in the Chamber today in these scientific matters-I do not want to disparage anybody else-because he is a bona fide scientist. He is a doctor, so he must be. If we can divorce ourselves from the fact that we are experts in certain fields, we have to rely on the expert advice of people who have impressive titles, such as professors and doctors, to give us the advice and expertise that we do not possess.
	We should look at the structure of the advisory council. We must not get to a position where such an important body, which makes representations to the Government on a very important area of policy, should have acting chairpersons, committee members resigning and members who do not understand that, at the end of the day, decisions have to be made by Ministers. It would not be right if such decisions were all made by experts. There is absolutely no point in a Government having a drugs policy as part of their portfolio if Ministers are not prepared to act. I hope that we can use the current episode to look at structures. Of course, it is difficult to do that in the middle of a general election campaign, but whichever party is in power-obviously, I hope it will be Labour-the Government need to look at those structures and ensure that the system is improved.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is in his place, and the Government will have noted the last report of the Home Affairs Select Committee on cocaine and the increase in the amount of it entering the United Kingdom. We suggested that it is vital that there be better co-ordination of Government drugs policy. The hon. Member for Hornchurch rightly raised the point that even if mephedrone is reclassified, in various parts of the world-I do not know if it is just in China-people are sitting down, as we speak, to try to concoct the next drug for the market. We are, in a sense, powerless to deal with the fact that, whatever we do in this place and regardless of decisions made by Ministers, at the end of the day, in order to circumvent the reclassification of this drug, somebody somewhere on this planet will be devising the next drug to be made available to young people and others. The hon. Gentleman is also right to mention the importance of the internet, and although I am not sure whether people in China will be able to buy such drugs on the internet, given what has happened with China and Google, the fact is that people in this country might be able to do so. That is something that we have to look at.
	That brings me to my penultimate point, which is about the European Union and its failure properly to grasp this as an important policy issue. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North came with us when the Committee visited Lisbon as part of our inquiry into the cocaine trade, but we came across the European research and drugs agency. We were treated extremely well when we went in, as I am sure parliamentarians from across the European Union are. There were half a dozen experts-or perhaps even up to a dozen-sitting before us telling us what the agency was doing on drugs policy. However, what concerns me is that although we have all those experts sitting around in Lisbon talking about policy issues, we still have an unco-ordinated policy in the EU. Mephedrone is banned in Sweden and Denmark, which are in the EU, and in Norway and Israel, which are outside it, but in France and the United Kingdom-until this order goes through, of course-there is no ban, and anyone who goes to Spain can buy it there, too.
	The European Union prides itself on co-ordinating policy on serious and organised crime, counter-terrorism and so on, and here we have a policy that is crying out to be co-ordinated at a European level, yet there is no co-ordination. That is why it is important that Ministers, shadow Ministers and alternative shadow Ministers should look at the European Union's drugs agency and ensure that it does the work that was intended when the Government supported its creation, by providing research, information and expertise, so that the work can be done on a Europe-wide basis-the very issues that the hon. Member for Huntingdon referred to. The fact is that there are people in different parts of the world trying to second-guess the decisions that we are making and trying to create the next internet drug. Those in the European agency are the kinds of people who have the resources to ensure that we remain one step ahead of the people who wish to create the next-steps drugs. If we work in a co-ordinated way, that will make the policy easier to implement and absorb.
	Finally, to return to my earlier point, I said right at the beginning that we should welcome what the Government had done, but lamented the fact that it had taken so long. There is no excuse when concerns are raised with Ministers and when Ministers say to the advisory council, as they did last November, "This is a serious issue. Please get on with making a decision as soon as possible." Let us look at the referral time. The Home Secretary asked the advisory council to look at the issue in November. Resignations aside, it is now April. We have had five months since the original referral. The process has taken far too long.
	Leaving the structures aside, we need a measure that will allow an interim decision to be taken, at least in the short term, because since the matter was first referred to my right hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), after the concerns raised by parliamentarians and our Committee-we have written to Ministers about the issue on a number of occasions, most recently a couple of weeks ago-some 25 young people have died. They include Louis Wainwright and others, and teenagers and young people go to nightclubs, where they have been able to buy mephedrone, every Friday and Saturday night.

David Winnick: Has my right hon. Friend not touched on the nub of the problem? How do we persuade people, and particularly young people, not to take such drugs? Are we satisfied that criminalising drugs will resolve the difficulties? Doing so may well resolve them, and no one has suggested that we decriminalise all drugs-or, indeed, any of them-at this moment. However, the real challenge, in saving lives and saving people from serious injuries, is surely to persuade them not to take drugs in the first place.

Keith Vaz: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is what the Select Committee report said. The need for persuasion and awareness is very important. The Minister has the Frank campaign to assist the Government, but we need more than that. We could simply say, "Take this drug and you will die", as 25 teenagers and young people have done since this matter was referred to my right hon. Friend the Member for Redditch. Those 25 young lives could have been saved if the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs had produced its report more quickly following the Minister's referral of the matter to the advisory council. They were not saved, however, because we have acted so slowly.

Brian Iddon: Over the past few weeks, many people have been saying that mephedrone is killing young people, yet the evidence shows that the young people who are using it-I would not advise them to use it at all, frankly-are often using other drugs as well. Until the coroners' reports have been published, we cannot say whether mephedrone killed Fred Bloggs or not. We have to wait for those reports. The problem is that young people are often using another drug-usually alcohol-as well as mephedrone, and sometimes another drug in addition to those two. So the real problem is poly-drug use. May I urge my right hon. Friend, in his capacity as Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, to look at the poly-drug use problem when Parliament returns?

Keith Vaz: I cannot give my hon. Friend an assurance on that, as it will depend on various factors. He is right, however, to identify that problem with mephedrone. Professor Iversen appeared before the Committee and said that mephedrone was an amphetamine by any other name, and that it could have harmful effects. My hon. Friend might be right about the individual cases, but my point is that 25 deaths were in some way related to the use of that drug- [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), for whom I have huge respect, is huffing and puffing-in a perfectly legal way-from his position on the Front Bench. The fact is, however, that I do not share his philosophy that people should just have any drug that they want. I am sure that he will have the opportunity to put forward his view in a moment.
	I shall return to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East, for whom I also have huge respect. He is very knowledgeable about these matters, and he is right. I will not jump on to the bandwagon about alcohol use, but, as a teetotaller, I believe that alcohol-related crime and deaths probably far outnumber those related to drug use. My hon. Friend is right; we need to look at this matter. I do not think that we should wait for the coroners' reports before doing what the Government are seeking to do today, however. We should act quickly and, if necessary, have an interim recommendation to the Home Secretary from the advisory council, so that he can act accordingly. This is the only lesson that we have to learn from the delays of the past 12 months. If we learn it, we will really be able to save lives in the future.

Evan Harris: It is a pleasure to follow the speech of the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz)-made without notes, I see-even though he was wrong. The fact that he was wrong was also confirmed by the tremendous speech made by the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon). Despite my warning to the right hon. Member for Leicester, East not to be dazzled by titles such as "Doctor" or "Professor", I acknowledge that the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East is indeed an expert in this area. He must be mortified by the way in which drug policy has been handled in this country over the decades-and, increasingly, now-by politicians and by the media. I say that not because he is some kind of drug-crazed libertarian; I know that he is not. I spend time with him on the Science and Technology Select Committee, and I know that he is concerned about ensuring that we have the right evidence-based policies and that the harms are minimised. That means not always jumping to the beat of the tabloid press. He was right to point out that the report produced by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which everyone is praising, makes it clear that we cannot say that the 25 deaths linked to the use of mephedrone were caused by mephedrone.

Keith Vaz: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Evan Harris: I want to make some progress first.
	The position of the Liberal Democrats is that we should, by and large, follow the properly formulated advice of the ACMD, as it is an expert body. We have said that on previous occasions. We do not know that that advice was not properly formulated, and, working on the basis that it is indeed sound, we support the statutory instrument that the Government have proposed, as well as the ban on mephedrone, and its classification as a class B drug. That does not mean, however, that we should suspend all inquiry into some of the issues and possible consequences of the decision.
	Allegations have been made that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which gave this advice, was not properly constituted, that the advice was not correctly considered-these are concerns coming from within the ACMD-and that although it did its best, it had to make recommendations based on inadequate data. I think that those concerns are framed by the contributions made not only by the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, but by the Conservative spokesman, to the effect that the ACMD was hampered in its work and there was delay, because it was short of its chairman for quite some time and suffered a number of resignations.
	When the ACMD makes a recommendation, the Government are, of course, entitled to accept or reject it. If the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee read the excellent report by the Science and Technology Select Committee on how to use scientific advice, he would see that that unanimous report-there was considerable input to it from the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East-made absolutely clear the Committee's view, which is also the Liberal Democrats' view, that politicians who are accountable should make these decisions, and that the role of advisers is to give advice.
	The key thing is that politicians must consider that advice, and when they reject it they should be very clear about why they reject it, so that they cannot pretend that they are taking the advice and basing their policy on evidence when they are not doing so. It is perfectly legitimate for politicians to base their policy on things other than the evidence, such as manifesto commitments, ideology-if hon. Members remember that term-economics or other matters. They can even base it on their desire to kowtow to the tabloid media. They will then be accountable for all those things; what they should not do is claim that they are taking an evidence-based approach when they are not.

Keith Vaz: I agree to this extent: the hon. Gentleman is coming round to the view that scientific advice is, in the end, only advice, and that what the Government have done represents the right approach. People can advise, but at the end of the day Ministers have to make the decision.

Evan Harris: I have not come round to that; it was my position five years ago. If the right hon. Gentleman looked at the record, he would find that that is what I have been saying. The point is, however, that what we cannot do-I hope the right hon. Gentleman will agree-is so to bully our advisers, or threaten them with the sack if they give the "wrong" advice, that they provide the advice that they think Ministers want to hear. It ill behoves the Conservative spokesman, particularly in view of the BSE fiasco, not to bear in mind the very clear conclusions in the Phillips report of 2000, which said that scientific advisers should not have to go back and do it all again because the Minister is not happy with the content of the advice. We must have clear published advice, and the Government must consider it properly. I shall return to this issue again in a few moments.
	What the ACMD usually does is consider the harms that drugs cause, and then consider the harms of illegality. It is important to be aware that there are risks and benefits both ways. There is no doubt that mephedrone is harmful. Although I am only a medical doctor, my advice to people is very clear-that they should not take this drug. I am possibly one of the few Members who can say that they have never taken an illegal drug, which may say something about my university time, as I was never offered it. I am also very clear and passionate about alcohol abuse and, indeed, nicotine abuse.
	It is nevertheless important to recognise that banning a drug has potential harms, and these are aspects that we would expect advisers to consider. First, the purity will be impacted by the substances with which the drug is cut by people illegally peddling it for profit. Secondly, criminal gangs can take over. Indeed, in paragraph 6.6 of its report, the ACMD points out that in Guernsey, where mephedrone was banned, criminal gangs have taken over and violence is now associated with accessing the drug, which was not the case previously. Although the ACMD listed that under "Societal Harms", it is actually a harm of criminalisation.
	Thirdly, users-if they are not prevented from using the drug-will be driven into the hands of those who want to sell them even more addictive and more harmful substances. Alternatively, they will turn to another substance which is still legal and may be more harmful. Furthermore, a ban may cause the price to rise, and acquisitive crime is more likely to be committed by people who are addicted to the substance. That is a logical consequence. I accept that drugs ruin lives, but criminal records ruin lives as well. Criminalising people, whether they are under 18 or young adults, has a consequence for those people which we cannot discount.
	I have not heard a word about any of those issues in the media coverage, or from the Minister or the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire). I think it wrong for Ministers, or people who want to become Ministers, not to address any of the potential downsides of the policy. I still support what the Government are doing, but at least I have considered those issues, and I question whether the ACMD had a chance to do so. I urge the media, when they see parents of young people who are upset that their child, or young adult son or daughter, is using the drug and bemoan that fact, to bear in mind that banning it will not cure the addiction.
	Paragraphs 5.12 to 5.17 of the ACMD report deal with deaths. The report states that
	"There have been at least 18 deaths in England where cathinones have been implicated"
	and that
	"There have been at least seven deaths...where cathinones have been suspected."
	It continues:
	"Currently, seven of these"-
	the 18 deaths in England-
	"have provided positive results for the presence of mephedrone at post mortem. To date, in one case the coroner concluded that the death was 'natural' and that an inquest was not required. The remaining cases are awaiting inquest."
	We know, then, that one case was a "not" and the others are only "maybes".
	I shall not repeat what was said by the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East about poly-drug use, but this drug is used in combination with other drugs, which may themselves be the cause of death. The same applies to the other reported deaths. I do not for a moment minimise the potential impact of the drug, but we must think carefully before stating as facts things that are not facts. We are all entitled to our opinions, but we are not entitled to our own facts.
	I realise that there is not much time for the Minister to respond, but I want to say a bit more about the ACMD. As the hon. Member for Hornchurch pointed out, the problem lies not with the ACMD but with the Home Secretary. However, I should like to know whether the hon. Gentleman, who seeks to be a Minister, thinks that Professor Nutt should have been sacked for the lecture that he gave at King's college, as professor of neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial college, and, if so what he should have been sacked for. I tried to ask the hon. Gentleman that, but he would not allow me to intervene, which is not a good sign. Someone who wishes to become a Minister dealing with these matters should be expected to be able to answer questions of that kind, whether they come from parents, enforcement agencies or experts.
	I invite the hon. Gentleman to tell us now that he agrees with the Home Secretary-and the shadow Home Secretary, who needs as much help as possible at the moment-that Professor Nutt should have been sacked, and should have been sacked earlier. If he does end up as the Minister, he will find that, on that basis, people will be unwilling to give him the advice that he seeks.
	I have written to Lord Drayson asking whether the Government's own principles for the treatment of scientific advice were not breached five times last week by the Government, who acted not just without considering the report-which they were bound to consider under the Government principles issued on Budget day-but before it had even been published. In fact, according to Eric Carlin, who resigned last week, when the chair of the ACMD left to brief the Home Secretary for a press conference the ACMD had not even finished the report. The Government responded to the press not only on a report that had not been considered, that had not been published and would not be published for three days, but on a report that had not yet been completed. That makes a travesty of the advisory process.
	If, as a result of that, this statutory instrument, if-or rather, I suspect, when-it is passed by both Houses, is challenged in the courts as being ultra vires and the Government lose the case, something which, as has been said, should have been done much earlier, will be delayed by months. The Government will find that people are unwilling to give advice if they break their own rules and pre-empt the work of the experts. The Government do not have to take that advice, but they promised to consider it properly and I do not believe that in this circumstance, they did so. Although the Liberal Democrats are happy to support the order, it is with sadness that we do so at a time when the advisory system on which we rely for proper policy is in crisis. It is not just the Government who suffer if they do not get good advice; we all suffer, because we end up with bad policy.

Alan Campbell: In the short time available to me, I wish to comment, in reverse order, on the main points that have been raised. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) made a number of serious allegations. The first was that the ACMD was not properly constituted when it came to this decision; we reject that view. He said that evidence was not properly considered; we reject that view. He said that this decision was based not on evidence but on tabloid headlines; we reject that view. He said that advisers were bullied and threatened by Ministers into making this decision; we reject that view, too. The hon. Gentleman needs to examine the evidence that the chair of the ACMD gave to the Select Committee on Home Affairs on 23 March-I believe that was the date-because he would then see that the relationship is very different from the one that he describes. If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the process that we have gone through, and so concerned that the principles on which he relies for good decision making have somehow not been matched on this occasion, he should stick to his principles and to the logic of his arguments and oppose this order, instead of trying to dance on the head of the pin with the logic of his argument.
	One of the allegations made by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) was that the Government have "downplayed" drugs seizures during our time in office; that is not true. He talked about the work of the Serious Organised Crime Agency and the UK Border Agency, and I have outlined their response to the issue before us. There is a fundamental misunderstanding in the question that he asks, because SOCA does have a role to play. However, it often has a role to play downstream; it is no good simply strengthening borders-we are, however, doing that-because we have to address the issue of drugs further downstream.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) raised the issue of poly-use and of drug and alcohol use. I welcome his contribution, because what he says is right. Whoever carries out this role after the general election, and whichever party is in government, they and this House will have to return to this issue, because it is important.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) again raised the issue of policy at a European level. There is disagreement among European countries about the best way to develop drugs policy, but there is a growing acceptance of the need for a harm-reduction approach. I also very much welcome the evolving approach of the new Administration in the United States.
	 One hour having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the motion, t he Deputy Speaker put the Question (Order, this day) .
	 Question agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That the draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 30 March, be approved.

Debt Relief (Developing Countries) Bill

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee.

Clause 9
	 — 
	Duration of Act

Edward Leigh: I beg to move amendment 2, page 6, line 32, leave out subsection (3).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 3, page 6, line 37, leave out subsection (6).

Edward Leigh: These are simple probing amendments. This Bill is clearly important, and it will have to be considered by the other place before it becomes law. In one sense clause 9 is clear, because it says:
	"This Act expires at the end of the period of one year beginning with commencement".
	At first sight, that would appear a perfectly sensible provision, because one presumes it would give time for the House and the Government to consider whether a more permanent Government Act should be placed on the statute book. I think that sunset clauses, as they are described, might often perform a perfectly useful purpose, especially when we are dealing in areas such as this, which have not been tested sufficiently by the Government and by courts in the past.
	Subsection (1) is quite clear. My amendment is purely a probing amendment, which will give the Minister an opportunity to explain what is going on. It states that we should leave out subsection (3). Subsection (1) states:
	"This Act expires at the end of the period of one year beginning with commencement",
	which is fair enough. However, subsection (3) states that
	"The Treasury may by order provide that this Act has permanent effect."
	That is what I am slightly worried about. If this Act is to have permanent effect-after all, we are talking in terms of the wash-up of Parliament, and this is a private Member's Bill involving the Government in difficult areas-I would prefer to have more protection for Parliament. Why can the Government just decide that the Act should have permanent effect? If this Act is to have permanent effect under subsection (3), why does subsection (1) state that
	"This Act expires at the end of the period of one year"?
	This is purely an opportunity for the Minister to explain his thinking. Presumably, he can come to the Dispatch Box and give all sorts of reassurances to Parliament. He can say that there will be a proper debate and proper evaluation. I have been doing interviews today in the context of my role as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee about there always being proper evaluation of value for money. I am sure that the Minister can reassure us on this point.
	My second amendment, which also relates to clause 9, would leave out subsection (6). Again, I hope that the Minister can help me on this. I have no particular axe to grind one way or another. I am neither in favour of the Bill nor against it but I presume that the Minister can explain to me in simple language what on earth subsection (6) means-I have tried to understand it, but I am totally confused. It states:
	"If this Act expires by virtue of this section...the Act is to be treated as never having been in force, and...accordingly, where...a judgment was given, or order or arbitration award made, on a relevant claim (as defined by section 5(2)) while the Act was in force, and...the amount of the judgment, order or award is, as a result of section 3, less than it would be if that section had not applied in relation to the claim, the amount of the judgment, order or award is to be treated as equal to the amount it would be if the section had not applied in relation to the claim."
	You are a much cleverer man than me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but if you understand that I pay tribute to you-I have always paid tribute to you for your high intelligence. I simply do not understand what that means and I hope that this most excellent and skilful Minister will be able to explain and justify subsection (6) to the House, so that we can proceed without further ado.

Sally Keeble: I am pleased that this Bill has made it into the wash-up. It is a tribute to the business managers all round that that has happened. There is cross-party support for this important Bill. I am very sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) is ill again, and I am therefore standing in for him.
	It is a great shame that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) did not talk to those on his Front Bench about the sunset clause. The arrangement for the sunset clause was agreed with his party. Given that he is a senior member of that party, I would have hoped that the terms of the clause would have been discussed very carefully, and if issues were unclear they could have been clarified in the meantime. I will go through some of the political points about his amendments and then some of the technical points and explain why, as the person who has been taking the Bill through the House, I do not support them.

William Cash: I am sure that the hon. Lady knows that I am extremely keen on all help that can give a reasonable footing to third-world and developing countries. However, I am a little puzzled about the reference to a sunset clause, because the Bill clearly states that the Act "expires at the end" of a period "beginning with commencement", but it is also subject to two other subsections that would mean that the sunset would be
	"at the end of the period of one year"
	or that the Act would, by order, have permanent effect. I am not quibbling about the content of the Bill.

Sally Keeble: I am going to be quite honest about this. Opposition Members have to make up their minds about which side they are on. On Second Reading, another Member said:
	"My heart goes out to the people of heavily indebted poor countries."-[ Official Report, 26 February 2010; Vol. 506, c. 580.]
	He then proceeded to block the entire Bill from going through, to the outrage of many members of the public. There is no point in saying that one is really upset about the position of third-world and developing countries and then raising all kinds of objections.

William Cash: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Sally Keeble: No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman's colleagues on the Front Bench, who have behaved entirely properly throughout this process, have described the measure as a sunset clause, and so it is. It was their measure, and they also got in the measure for making the Bill permanent. If the clause were taken out, the effect would be that the Bill would continue for more than one year. There has to be an annual vote on it, because there is no provision for anything else. I asked in the Library and, in the short time available, the only Acts that we could think of that are so demanding of parliamentary time and attention that they have to be renewed annually are terrorism legislation and the Finance Acts. I am sure that the hon. Member for Gainsborough, who is the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and is therefore very concerned about efficiency and proper functioning, would think that, important though the Bill is, it is not on the same level as terrorism legislation or the Finance Acts, but that would be one effect of his amendment.

David Drew: If we were to pass the Bill into statute and then, a year later, effectively let it wither on the vine, what message would we be sending to the developing countries that are looking for our support in this area? Surely that is the point.

Sally Keeble: My hon. Friend is exactly right. The other side of the argument is that it was important to ensure that we had cross-party consensus, given that the legislation was complex and that we were coming to the end of the Parliament. It was also thought important to ensure that there was a proper way forward and that there was provision for a new Parliament to take a further look at the matter. My hon. Friend is right and I am sure that these issues will be debated again.
	Amendment 2 would remove subsection (3), which means that the Bill would require annual renewal. It would be damaging and unsatisfactory for heavily indebted poor countries to have unresolved commercial debt claims hanging over them, particularly when there remains a possibility of those being aggressively enforced for their full value in spite of the debt relief provided by others. HIPC Governments have made clear the real economic costs resulting from the deterrent to trade and investment that such unresolved claims could create. If the Act remained temporary, with the possibility of expiring within a year, a commercial creditor who might consider seeking full repayment would have a disincentive to settle their claim, because if they held on to it and the Act expired, they would be able to pursue 100 per cent. repayment. The Bill, as introduced, did not create that incentive for creditors to hold on to their debts in the hope that the Act would expire, as it would have taken permanent effect immediately.

Edward Leigh: That is fine, but then why did the hon. Lady put subsection (1) in her Bill?

Sally Keeble: I shall come to that. First, I am going to go through the hon. Gentleman's comments on his amendments, because there were some contradictions in relation to amendment 3.
	Originally, the Bill did not create an incentive for creditors to hold on to their debts in the hope that the Act would expire, as it would have taken permanent effect immediately. That risk was one reason for the caution about including the sunset clause. However, the problem would be considerably worse if the Bill provided no option, short of new primary legislation, for the Act to take permanent effect.
	If Parliament is satisfied at some future point that the Act has caused, and is causing, no significant damage to the operation of financial markets, then it should be able to approve, by affirmative resolution, its taking permanent effect. That is a proper way to provide for the orderly management of these very difficult debts in heavily indebted poor countries. There has been extensive discussion of this Bill, but part of the purpose throughout has been to make sure that we use the existing procedures of the HIPC programme to provide stability and security to the countries involved.
	I turn now to amendment 3. The hon. Member for Gainsborough has said that he cannot understand clause 9(6), but it makes arrangements for handling the debt if the Bill is not confirmed. The result of that would be two classes of creditors: the first would be made up people who had taken action after the Bill fell and who would therefore be able to sue for the full amount, and the second would consist of people who took action for the one year that the legislation was in force. The second group would find that the value of their claims would be knocked back, because the legislation would allow them to pursue only that certain percentage of their debts that was approved by the HIPC procedure. The purpose of clause 9(6) is therefore to restore equity between the different classes of creditors.
	As I have said, although the Bill looks quite complex, the principles behind it are simple. One of those principles is that there should be equity between different classes of creditors. If the amendment were accepted, a mechanism for restoring that equity would disappear, with the result that creditors would have no incentive to pursue their debts in the interim period when the legislation is in force. They will think, "Perhaps it won't be renewed, so we'd better not go to the courts now and just hang on instead." That would mean that the HIPC countries would still have their debts hanging over them, and also that creditors would receive less justice in the end. That would be the impact of amendment 3, and I do not think that that is what the hon. Gentleman intends. If the legislation were to fall for some reason in the next Parliament, I think that he would probably prefer to see justice restored for those creditors who had taken action while it was in force.
	Amendment 2 would give the Act that this Bill will become equal status, in terms of parliamentary time, attention and renewal, with much more substantial pieces of legislation. It would have to keep being renewed every year, and there would be no provision to make it permanent. However, I think that the Opposition's intention was to ensure that a new Parliament could scrutinise the legislation and decide whether it was what was needed. If it was, and if it was working properly, that new Parliament could make it permanent.
	The impact of amendment 6 would also not be what the hon. Member for Gainsborough intends, as it would delete the mechanism for providing justice and equity to all classes of creditors, if a new Parliament decided not renew the legislation.

Edward Leigh: May I ask one other question? Can the hon. Lady assure me that there will not be very expensive lawsuits as a result of this Bill? Will it be sufficiently clear, so that we can avoid this becoming a matter of just lawyers, lawyers, lawyers?

Sally Keeble: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. One problem has been the cost of lawsuits, which is in part why the Government and other donors have set up a fund to enable developing countries to deal with some of the lawsuits that have arisen as a result of the vulture funds. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary will want to say more about that.
	Furthermore, there is a real perception that there is no system-that it is all down to the courts and that there is no mechanism-whereas in fact although the measure is a Treasury Bill, it draws on existing international development procedures for the management of developing country debt. In previous discussions, we described the amount of public sector debt and noted that much of it has been written off. A total of about £4.5 billion was private sector debt. A lot of the debt has already been managed. The legislation would deal with the completely unreasonable creditors-the vulture funds, which involve people who operate outside the rules.
	There are already internationally recognised mechanisms to determine the value of debt. If the hon. Gentleman had been in the Chamber on Second Reading, he would have heard the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke) claim from the Front Bench credit for his party for taking the lead on the management of developing country debt. On the Government Benches, we tried not to heckle or intervene when the hon. Gentleman took the credit, but there is no dispute about the fact that there are proper mechanisms. The only issue is to make sure that they apply to vulture funds, whose activities rightly outrage so many people not only in the UK but across the world.
	The hon. Member for Gainsborough asked about the provision on the duration of the Act. The amendment was included at the behest of Conservative Front Benchers. It was a sunset clause for a year to give a new Parliament an opportunity to look again at the legislation, to make sure that we were not in Dangerous Dogs Act territory, where legislation was passed without scrutiny. There will be a chance to look at the detail and the working of the measure, so that it can pass into legislation.
	I hope that I have answered the hon. Gentleman's concerns.

David Gauke: We are pleased that the Government have found time to bring the Bill back to the House on Report and that we have an opportunity to complete its remaining stages. I thank the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) for her remarks about the cross-party co-operation on the Bill. I hope we can maintain that spirit for the rest of the afternoon.
	In addressing the amendments, it may help my hon. Friends if I explain the thinking behind clause 9, which, as the hon. Lady pointed out, was an amendment we proposed in Committee. It was drawn up in conjunction with the parliamentary draftsman and there was cross-party co-operation. The thinking behind the provision is as follows. We all want to help developing countries. We are all concerned about the activities of vulture funds, but it is recognised by the hon. Lady-the Bill's sponsor-the Government and the Opposition that we need to get the measure right. It is important that its provisions are carefully calibrated, because if we prevent creditors from enforcing debts against developing countries, there is a risk that they will not lend to developing countries in future. The law of unintended consequences could apply and we could make things worse for developing countries. Nobody wants to do that, which is why the Bill is carefully calibrated to apply only to heavily indebted poor countries. It relates only to past debt and not to future contracts. Future lending agreements can be enforced unaffected by the Bill.
	Concern was frequently expressed by industry bodies during the Treasury consultation that the Bill might send the message that creditors in the UK could not enforce debts against developing countries and that that could be applied more broadly. As part of the consultation, it was pointed out that those possible spill-over costs would be difficult to assess. For example, would a risk premium be applied to developing countries that would make it harder for them to obtain credit?
	The solution to the problem that we proposed, which the Government and the hon. Member for Northampton, North accepted in Committee, was clause 9, which is essentially a sunset clause. The thinking behind the clause is that we should accept the Bill. However, although it has been given sufficient time to proceed in this House, it will not get the full scrutiny in the other place that such a Bill might otherwise receive. Even if it did receive such scrutiny, however, some things would not become clear until it came into force, so we proposed a mechanism that would make it possible in the 12 months following enactment to assess the Act's effect on the risk premium paid by developing countries and the number of debts-again, there is uncertainty and disagreement on this point-that could not be enforced at their full amount.

William Cash: My question is really only about the accuracy of language. When we use the expression "sunset clause", we usually mean that as a result of various procedures, and after a period of time, a provision will cease to have effect. However, there is some confusion, as exactly the opposite seems to be provided for by clause 9 because it can give the Bill permanent effect, rather than causing it to cease. To make things clearer, may we use an expression other than "sunset clause"-perhaps by referring to a "sunlight clause"?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Interventions should be brief at the best of times-they should not be mini-speeches-but there is a premium on such brevity now because we have a very real time constraint and other hon. and right hon. Members might wish to speak.

David Gauke: I would always take guidance on terminology from my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), but clause 9 does contain a sunset provision because subsection (1) provides that the legislation shall expire after 12 months. However, the clause includes additional provisions that allow the Treasury, by order, to renew the Act for a further 12 months or to give it permanent effect. The advantage of including both approaches-this deals specifically with amendment 2-is that it gives the Treasury the flexibility to assess the effect of the Bill. It is quite possible that a Select Committee will want to investigate the effect of the legislation in the early months of the next Parliament. We could then be in a position to make an informed judgment about the Act. We might be unsure about some concerns, in which case we could give the Act another 12 months and look again, but if the concerns can be dismissed after we have seen the way in which the Act has worked for 12 months, we can accept that it should have permanent effect.

Edward Leigh: I am pleased that I tabled amendment 2 because we have had a debate about the law of unintended consequences. That is a serious point because the Bill could militate against developing countries. My hon. Friend might be fortunate enough to become the Treasury Minister with responsibility for the legislation, but does he think that 12 months is sufficient time in which to assess this complex area? What sort of plans does he have? I assume that he will not give a commitment either way now, but he might say later that we should have a further year of consideration.

David Gauke: That is possible under the clause as it stands: it gives Ministers in the next Government, whoever they are, an opportunity to assess what is happening to the risk premium, the levels of debt affected, and the implications of the legislation. If it turns out that 12 months is insufficient, there is the possibility of extension for a further 12 months. I think that the provision adds to the Bill.
	Let me say why I think this debate is helpful. Parliament is dealing with the matter sensibly, recognising the potential dangers and treading carefully. That is a good message to send out. The concern about the risk premium centres not on the Bill itself, but on the possibility that it will become a precedent for a future Bill that prevents the enforcement of future debts. No doubt some in this House would argue that that would be a great thing to do, but it would pose significant dangers for developing countries. The element of caution provided by the sunset clause is sensible, and subsection (3) is an important part of that.
	The hon. Member for Northampton, North spoke about subsection (6) and how it would be wrong to allow a situation to arise in which those debts enforced during the period in which the measure is in force were treated differently from those that were pursued subsequently. That would have an impact on which debts were enforced and, in some respects, damage the credibility of the legislation. Subsection (6) is therefore helpful.
	I shall bear in mind your strictures, Mr. Speaker, as I realise that many hon. Members wish to speak, whether on the amendments or Third Reading. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) for raising his queries, but I believe that clause 9 as it stands is beneficial. It strengthens both the Bill and the next Parliament's ability to deal with these matters in greater detail, when the opportunity arises.

Ian Pearson: I appreciate the probing spirit in which the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) tabled the amendments. I do not feel the need to add to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) and the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke). Given your strictures, Mr. Speaker, it would not be right to explain for the third time why the clause is structured as it is and why the amendments are unnecessary-

Edward Leigh: Will the Minister give way?

Ian Pearson: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I assume that he listened to the arguments made by my hon. Friend and his.

Edward Leigh: I have listened to the whole debate, but I want to know what the nature of the assessment will be. We are dealing with a highly complex matter relating to developing countries. What assessment will be made and how will the Treasury conduct that assessment over the next 12 months?

Ian Pearson: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Treasury will look at all the available evidence on the potential market impact of the measure before seeking an affirmative resolution to give it permanent effect, or to extend it for a further year. Clearly, our aim during the Committee stage was to respond to the concerns expressed by those who argued that the legislation could have an impact on future lending decisions that would be to the disadvantage of developing countries. No one wants that to happen.
	We think that the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), who sadly cannot be with us today-we wish him a speedy recovery-is carefully calibrated, as the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire says. We are confident that, when the assessment is conducted, there will be no evidence of any significant market impact. None the less, it is right that we take a belt-and-braces approach, which is why we were happy to accede as we have to the arguments of those who expressed doubt. With that in mind, I urge the hon. Member for Gainsborough to withdraw the amendment.

Edward Leigh: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	 Third Reading

Ian Pearson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) on his Bill, which is likely to be very effective in providing relief to developing countries and in ensuring that they are not exposed in future to what is frequently called vulture fund activity.
	I pay great tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), who is a long-standing champion of the world's poorest countries. She is a strong and very effective campaigning voice when it comes to helping the world's poorest, and indeed standing up for the rights of her constituents. I am glad that she has been able to take the measure forward.
	It is important to recognise the wider context relating to heavily indebted poor countries and the initiatives that the Government have taken. Since 2000, the UK has committed $9.7 billion to debt relief, according to OECD figures. We have always gone beyond the requirements of the HIPC initiative, and have provided 100 per cent. debt cancellation when countries complete the initiative. As a result of the actions that we have taken, there have been major benefits to various countries. Under the HIPC initiative, Tanzania has been helped to increase the number of its children in primary schools by more than 50 per cent., built almost 2,500 new primary schools, and recruited 28,000 extra teachers. Mozambique has similarly made significant strides. It has more than tripled its poverty-reducing expenditure as a result of the HIPC initiative.
	However, although the Government have taken a number of non-legislative steps through a range of initiatives, we have always believed that there remains a problem. The problem of vulture funds can be fully tackled only through legislation that restricts commercial creditors from recovering more than a fair amount of the debts of the world's poorest.
	I welcome the cross-party consensus on the Bill. The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire has been a strong supporter of it, but has rightly raised some concerns, as one would expect. I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), who also speaks for the Opposition, and who made clear his support for the Bill. I know that he is a long-standing supporter of the issues, too.
	We recognise that the issue is complex, but the economic logic for legislating is strong and received wide agreement during the Bill's earlier stages. The targeted nature of the Bill provides an incentive for debtors to settle claims on terms compatible with debt relief. The measure introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, and so ably supported and taken forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North, will prevent a minority of creditors from litigating to extract payment in excess of that provided for under the HIPC initiative using the UK's laws and courts. The Bill will protect creditors' rights to recover the proportion of their debt that is consistent with the HIPC initiative, so the vast majority of commercial creditors, who already comply with HIPC terms, will not be affected.
	We built safeguards into the legislation in Committee, and as I have said, we were happy to co-operate in doing so. The Bill is in good shape-it is excellent-and I hope that the House will agree to it this afternoon.

Sally Keeble: I shall be brief, as I know that others also wish to comment. I am proud to have taken responsibility for the Bill. I am only sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) was unable to do so, although I suspect that he is watching our proceedings on television, as he has before. The Bill has cross-party consensus, but coming at the end of the Session it has had quite a difficult passage through Parliament. I hope that when it reaches the other place it will have a fair wind and that there will not be extraneous, last-minute objections to it.
	The political and moral arguments for the Bill were won a long time ago. The only issue that has remained is whether there is the political will to put it on the statute book before the end of this Session. The fact that we have taken it so far, with the support of the business managers, and the fact that it is on the cusp of becoming law, shows that this Parliament can respond to the concerns of the general public and the great upsurge of support that there was for this legislation, and the revulsion, indeed the moral repugnance of which my hon. Friend the Minister has previously spoken, against the activities of the vulture funds, which cream off the money that is intended to help the poorest people in the world, and instead deposit it in bank accounts in offshore tax havens.
	This is a landmark Bill. It is the first of its kind. The US Congress has introduced similar legislation, but it has not got through there yet. This country is a hub for financial services and a world leader in international development and debt relief, and there has been enormous cross-party and public support for the stance that the Government have taken. We have also shown that we can clamp down on the abuses.
	The Bill will make a difference to UK taxpayers because it will stop their money that has gone into debt relief being creamed off into vulture funds, and it will make a big difference to the lives of some of the poorest people in the world. One hundred and forty-five million pounds might not sound much when it is compared with the bankers' bonus pool, but it is about 40 per cent. or more of the entire budget of some the poorest of the developing countries.
	I hope that the Bill passes quickly through the other place and ends up on the statute book, where it will stand as a real reminder of the outstanding work in this Parliament to respond to the priorities of the public and to protect some of the poorest people in the world.

David Gauke: As I said earlier, we welcome the fact that the Bill has returned to the House and that time has been found for it. The Opposition supported the Bill on Second Reading, we co-operated in ensuring that there was an early Committee stage, and we tabled an amendment that we discussed a moment ago, which was accepted by the Government and the Bill's proposer. It is unfortunate that there was some controversy, which the Government were guilty of whipping up, when the Bill did not reach Report stage or Third Reading. As the Government are well aware, we did not object to the Bill progressing. We did not collude in its being objected to, although it would be fair to say that it is usual that private Members' Bills that have not been debated on Report or Third Reading do not progress. Our argument has always been that it is a question of the Government giving time for this Bill. We are delighted that, after some initial reluctance, the Government have brought the Bill back. It was always in the Government's hands to do that. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) mentioned the support of the business managers, and I would make particular mention of my hon. Friend the shadow International Development Secretary, who has been supportive of the Bill and has taken a close interest in it both in front of and behind the scenes. It is good that the Bill has returned to us, and once again, as it completes its Third Reading, the Conservatives will not oppose it.
	There are matters of legitimate debate, such as ensuring that the law of unintended consequences does not apply, and that we do not inadvertently make life more difficult for developing countries. However, the point that I made at earlier stages is that, to some extent, the Bill provides an insolvency procedure for developing countries that find themselves in great difficulty, because they will be able to reduce their debts equitably and share them out among creditors, whereas without such a mechanism no creditor would receive anything, or such payments would be made inequitably. For those reasons, we are very happy for the Bill to proceed, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Northampton, North on the way in which she has progressed the matter.
	Finally, I think that this will be my last opportunity to debate with the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Dudley, South (Ian Pearson). It has been a great pleasure to shadow him-in part, along with my hon. Friends-over the past couple of years or so. He has always been a great pleasure to work with; he is a man of great integrity and hard work; and I think that I speak on behalf of all my colleagues in wishing him well for the future.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr. Speaker: Order. Three right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. We have only 17 minutes remaining, and I should like to accommodate all three, so Members can do the arithmetic for themselves.

Mark Oaten: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I can speed things up by putting on the record the genuine cross-party support that there is for the Bill. The Liberal Democrats are certainly delighted to see it go forward at such a pace. Many of us who have attended Inter-Parliamentary Union and Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conferences throughout the world have visited countries, spoken to some of the political leaders of debt-ridden countries and shared their frustration not only at the difficulties that they have had in dealing with debt, but the legal difficulties that they have faced due to the private acquisitions that have been attempted against them. So, those countries will welcome what has happened today in Parliament.
	I, too, congratulate the Members behind the Bill, and in particular the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), who has spoken so eloquently to it. However, the House should also congratulate those campaigning organisations outside Westminster, such as Jubilee 2000 and many others, which have kept on and on at Governments of all parties. Those groups should share our congratulations on the work that has been done.
	The Liberal Democrats are certainly very pleased that the Bill has made such progress, and I am sure that we will do all that we can in another place to ensure that it progresses to a conclusion.

Gerald Kaufman: If this is the final speech that I make in this Parliament, I cannot think of a more worthy piece of legislation on which to speak. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), who pioneered the original Bill and, when my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) fell ill, took the legislation back over and has steered it with immense knowledge and aplomb. I am sure that the whole House would like to send my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish its best wishes for a speedy and full recovery.
	The Bill has reached this stage not only because of the co-operation of Government and Opposition Front Benchers and the work of my two hon. Friends, but because of the great pressure outside the House from people who care. I pay tribute to many of my constituents who have rightly put pressure on me and other Members to get the Bill this far. In particular, I thank the congregation of Holy Innocents' church, Fallowfield, for its work on development and aid, and Mr. Stephen Pennells, who is its spokesman, although by no means, as he will acknowledge, the only activist on these matters. The House is passing a Bill this afternoon that will benefit a very large number of people who may not even learn that it exists. It is a worthy little coda at the end of this Parliament, and I thank everybody involved for their work.

John Battle: Having served for the past 10 years on the Select Committee on International Development, it is a proud moment for me to say a few words in support of the Bill, which has all-party support. I know that we are at the end of the Parliament and there is a rush to get things through, and I listened carefully to the probing amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), but for us to have got to this stage on a Bill that will do a little more on effective debt relief for the poorest in the world is an impressionistic moment. It sends a signal that I hope will mean our country provides some international leadership, even in the heat of an election that may focus particularly on local concerns.
	Debt relief counts for far more than our aid contribution, as does fair trade. Tackling debt and the undermining of the highly indebted poor countries initiative by predator-creditor litigations is crucial. The HIPC initiative has had some great successes-my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary mentioned Mozambique, and the abolition of primary school fees in Uganda has doubled the number of enrolments and decreased inequality. In Bolivia, the cancellation of debts has improved health care massively. Tackling debt is crucial, and getting a grip on the so-called vulture funds that undermine the ability to manage it is a good move and should send a clear international signal. The Bill will prevent creditors from recovering an amount in excess of what is consistent with the HIPC initiative.
	I have often been reminded of a cartoon that was once produced in Mexico. A teaspoon of aid was being put on the tongue of a poor peasant, but in the meantime the grip of debt was around their windpipe. A theologian in Mexico wrote that
	"the life of the poor is accumulated by the rich. The latter live the life of the rich in virtue of the death of the poor."
	That was Enrique Dussel, who suggested that the poor do not live in one cycle going round one way and the rich in another, but that they are interconnected and interlinked.
	We need a much better relationship between the north and the south. I have consistently argued for that. There should be a mutual relationship between the rich and the poor rather than the north patronisingly helping the south, and the debt question is central to that mutuality. It is an issue north and south, as we all now know. If I dare be so bold as to suggest it, the parallel between the activities of hedge funds and vulture funds and the sub-prime, loan-shark doorstep lenders in poorer parts of my constituency suggests that a debt relief Bill is needed here in Britain, which could include the capping of interest rates. I simply wish to put that marker down, because those who make excessive profits from low-income borrowers, including the countries and people who are least able to pay, end up buying and selling debts, recycling them, overcharging massively and making the situation even more intolerable.
	I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), who cannot be here, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) and Ministers. With the co-operation of the Opposition parties, they have got the Bill to this stage, and I hope that it will make a continuing contribution to the alleviation of poverty and set an international trend that can be sustained in the decades to come.
	Finally, I thank the people of west Leeds for their support and for the privilege of representing them for the past 23 years. Some of the actions that our Government have taken on health care and education-primary issues in the two-thirds world as well-have made a difference in my constituency, and I am proud of that fact. I leave the House with a slight spring in my step, believing that it can pass good legislation. Yes, that legislation must be presented and examined carefully and re-examined in future, but this House can make a difference and do a good job, not only here in Britain but internationally.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker: The question is that leave be given-

David Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the point of order relates to the Bill.

David Howarth: It relates to the motion, Mr. Speaker. To be clear about what the motion is asking us to do, may I ask a question about-

Mr. Speaker: Order. I apologise for having to interrupt the hon. Gentleman-it is always a pleasure to hear his points of order-but I am afraid that the short answer to his question is no. The reason is that the motion needs to be put forthwith, so the question of the pursuit of explanations sadly does not arise.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Order, this day),
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to appropriate the supply authorised in this Session of Parliament for the service of the year ending with 31 March 2011.- (Mr. Timms . )
	 Question  agreed to.
	 Ordered,
	That the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Liam Byrne, Stephen Timms, Sarah McCarthy-Fry and Ian Pearson prepare and bring in the Bill.

Appropriation Bill

Presentation and First Reading, and remaining stages.
	Mr. Stephen Timms accordingly presented a Bill to authorise the use of resources for the service of the year ending with 31 March 2011.
	 Bill read the First time; to be printed (Bill 86).
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Order, this day, and Standing Order No. 56), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read a Second Time.
	 Question put forthwith, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker: I say to the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) that, as I am sure he appreciates, I intended no discourtesy to him. I am simply sticking to the very formal procedure that applies in this admittedly unusual situation.

Finance Bill

Second Reading

Stephen Timms: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	We have come through a very difficult time in the world economy. It has required difficult choices and Governments around the world intervening in unprecedented ways to rescue the financial system, and initiatives to support the economy, businesses and families. But we made the right calls, as the latest survey from the British Chambers of Commerce and the sharp upwards revision of the OECD's UK growth forecast have underlined this morning. The damage to families and businesses has been much less than if we had let the recession run its course, and much less than the actual damage when that approach was applied in the 1980s and 1990s.
	We are committed to all the tax measures that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out in the Budget, but we have published a much shorter Finance Bill than usual and it is focused on the key Budget measures. Some two thirds of the measures in the Bill have been aired for comment and consultation already. We are proceeding today on the basis of consent, and to be helpful to Opposition Members, I will not be moving the landline duty in clause 23 and schedule 2; clause 58 requiring financial securities from employers at serious risk of pay-as-you-earn or national insurance contributions not being paid; or clause 65 and schedule 21 on furnished holiday lettings. Those will all be in the second Finance Bill at the start of the new Parliament.
	I have also tabled amendments to clause 9 that will limit the increase in cider duty to 2 per cent. above inflation, with effect from 30 June this year. That change will come at a cost to the Exchequer, and leave cider taxation out of step with other drinks. So again we will legislate after the election to confirm the existing new rate.

John Redwood: Before he sits down, will the Minister please supply the House with the figures showing what difference those measures will make to the revenue forecast for the immediate year?

Stephen Timms: I can give the right hon. Gentleman some of those figures, and we can perhaps return to individual figures when we consider the amendments that I have tabled. The total gain to the Exchequer from the higher rate of cider duty in a full year would be £15 million. The landline duty will start in the course of this financial year, but in a full year it is estimated to raise, from memory, £175 million, to be used in ways that he will know about. I am not sure whether there is a score against clause 58, but there is a score against clause 65 and schedule 21, which deal with furnished holiday lettings. Again from memory, if the provision was left unamended, the impact for the Exchequer in a full year would be in the order of £30 million.

William Cash: The Minister has just said, in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), that there "would be"-in fact, he said "will be"-a certain amount, but does he not accept that he is making an enormous assumption? Not only is his Finance (No. 2) Bill, which would carry those proposals forward, not a Bill, but we are discussing the Finance Bill that is now before the House. He is stretching the bounds of imagination a bit, in assuming that the second Bill will come into effect in the way that he was suggesting.

Stephen Timms: I do not think that I am, although I may have slightly misled the hon. Gentleman: the figures that I have just quoted are given on the assumption that the Bill-with the amendments that I have outlined-is enacted and nothing further happens. I have said that if we are re-elected, we will change that, and then the numbers that I have just given will not apply.
	To secure recovery, the Bill builds on the success of the measures that we have introduced so far. Our stamp duty holiday on all transactions under £175,000 gave support for the housing market when it needed it most, helping 260,000 home buyers. However, many first-time buyers still struggle, so clause 6 increases the stamp duty threshold for first-time buyers from £125,000 to £250,000. Nine out of 10 first-time buyers will now pay no stamp duty at all. To fund that change, clause 7 announces an increase in stamp duty to 5 per cent. for residential property over £l million. Some 850,000 companies will benefit from the deferral of the rise in small companies rate. Clause 3 maintains corporation tax for small companies at 21 per cent. for 2010-11. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in the Budget, we are staging the fuel duty rise over the coming year. Under clause 12, it is up by a penny this month, which is less than inflation. Clause 13 provides for a further 1p rise in October, with the remainder in January.
	The Bill helps to underpin strong and sustainable growth. Clause 5 doubles the annual investment allowance to £100,000 for expenditure incurred from this month. Some 99 per cent. of businesses will now be able to deduct all qualifying purchases of plant and machinery from their taxable profits, so we are encouraging investment and helping to support profits. Clause 4 doubles the limit for entrepreneur's relief for capital gains tax, extending the 10 per cent. rate from £l million to the first £2 million of gains over a lifetime. Among other benefits, serial entrepreneurs and business angels will retain more of their gains in order to fund new investments and support further growth. Those are important measures, providing support for small and growing businesses. To help pay for them, the 50 per cent. levy on the excessive bonuses of bankers provided for in clause 22, which was announced in the pre-Budget report and quite widely supported in the House, has raised £2 billion-more than twice what was forecast. Clause 2 maintains corporation tax at 28 per cent.-the lowest rate in the G7-maintaining the UK's position as one of the best places to do business in the world.
	The Bill provides the key tax measures to halve the deficit over four years. Clause 1 provides for the new 50 per cent. additional rate. Clauses 24, 49, 50 and 71 provide for the restriction of tax relief on pensions for those earning over £130,000 a year, as well as for further anti-forestalling. In drawing up the clauses on pensions, we have balanced certainty-and giving people time to prepare for the changes-with the need for additional consultation. Further work is still needed on what is done for individuals in special circumstances, on contributions for members of defined benefits schemes, and on obligations on scheme administrators. Whenever we can, we will publish draft regulations and primary legislation early to give people a chance to comment. In particular, we will discuss further with pension providers how schemes would pay the recovery charge on behalf of the individual, so that the details can be in place in good time for 2012-13.

Mark Hoban: Can the Minister explain why the one-off cost of implementation for the Government's pension changes has trebled in the space of two months?

Stephen Timms: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have been in discussions with the industry, and that there has been extensive consultation on these measures. The estimate to which he refers has been revised as a result. Ensuring the widest possible consultation and discussion is the right way to proceed in order to ease any difficulty that might otherwise arise from implementing these changes.

Mark Hoban: But can the Minister explain how he got it wrong by a factor of three? The amount has increased from £300 million to nearly £1 billion.

Stephen Timms: I do not have the figures in front of me but, as I said, we have been consulting people, as we should, and talking to them in a very open way. The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury has been leading this work, and that has resulted in changes to the estimate.
	The reforms to income tax and pensions will affect only the top 2 per cent. of earners. They have benefited the most from strong growth in recent years, and we think that it is right that those with the broadest shoulders should carry the greatest burden in funding the recovery.

William Cash: On the question of national insurance, will the Minister be kind enough to explain to us where the relevant measures are? They might be in the Bill and I have simply not seen them. The whole process of dealing with national insurance, which is one of the hottest issues in the election, does not appear to be in the Bill. Is he proposing to table an amendment later in the proceedings today, or will this be dealt with under some other procedure?

Stephen Timms: No; national insurance cannot be dealt with in a Finance Bill alongside other tax measures. It will require a separate piece of legislation, which we will be introducing later in the year.
	Clause 9 confirms the planned increase in alcohol duty of 2 per cent. above inflation. Clause 69 allows us to amend the duty definition of "cider" so that particularly high-strength ciders are taxed at a more appropriate rate. Clause 10 increases tobacco duty by 1 per cent. above inflation. Increases of 2 per cent. above inflation will be made in each of the next two years. Clause 8 freezes the inheritance tax threshold until 2015.

Greg Hands: Just in case we do not get on to debate tobacco, will the Minister reassure the House that a proper study has been made of the likely impact of retail prices index plus 2 per cent. increase in tobacco duty on smuggling and counterfeiting? The lessons of the past are that raising tobacco duty too sharply and too quickly can have certain side effects.

Stephen Timms: The hon. Gentleman raises an important matter. We have indeed reflected carefully on that point, as we do each year. He will perhaps be aware of our significant success in bearing down on tobacco smuggling over the past decade. That has significantly supported the revenue from tobacco taxation, and we are confident that the measures that we are enacting in the Bill will indeed have the scoring set out in the Red Book alongside them.
	Clauses 25 to 59 are an important part of the Bill and are part of a big package to tackle tax avoidance, non-compliance and offshore evasion. The package protects around £18 billion worth of yield and will raise a further £1.5 billion in total between now and 2013-over three financial years. The disclosure regime we introduced in 2004 has transformed the battle against avoidance and has protected over £12 billion of revenue since it was introduced six years ago. We have been consulting since the pre-Budget report, in which we set out proposals for strengthening the disclosure arrangements, and clause 57 is the result of that consultation and discussion. It does indeed strengthen and enhance the disclosure regime further still.

Stewart Hosie: Before the right hon. Gentleman moves on, he will remember that there was a debate last week about retrospective legislation in relation to tax avoidance. The amendments and new clauses before us today bring an introducer into play, as well as a promoter of the scheme. At this stage, will he tell us a little more about why he believes bringing an introducer into the legislation would benefit in the fight against evasion and avoidance?

Stephen Timms: The key benefit of the changes we are making lies in providing to Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs earlier information about the kind of schemes that people are being provided with. We are confident that if we have that information earlier, we will be able to address those schemes more effectively and so bear down on the scale of the problem.
	In last year's presidency of the G20, we led the global clampdown on tax havens and offshore evasion. I am pleased that since the G20 summit in London last April, more tax information exchange agreements have been signed around the world than in the whole of the previous decade. Clause 36 sets higher penalties, up to 200 per cent. of the tax due, for those who fail to declare income and gains from jurisdictions that do not exchange information automatically with the UK.

Mark Hoban: On that last point about the information exchange agreements and the jurisdictions that are not covered by them, how will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that taxpayers who are not represented-for example, a nurse from a West Indian nation that does not have a tax information agreement-are protected, while ensuring that we catch the people who are using these jurisdictions to avoid paying tax?

Stephen Timms: It is important for everybody to comply with their tax obligations. Anyone who is in doubt about what they might be can, of course, contact HMRC for information-and I am pleased to say that many people do, including people in the sort of circumstances that the hon. Gentleman describes. Encouraging news of which I think he will be aware is that we have indeed recently signed a number of tax information exchange agreements with Caribbean jurisdictions, including Belize and Dominica, and we are keen to sign more.

William Cash: In the context of his consideration of Finance Bills over the last year or so, will the Minister explain whether he believes that the legislation is now getting so complicated that it is becoming a burden on the British people? Has he given any serious consideration to the idea of having a flat tax, for example, in order to remove that burden? Having been a member of the Committee considering the Income Taxes Consolidation Bill, I know how complex the legislation is and I just think it has got so out of control that it is a real drain on British business and on people who work in industry.

Stephen Timms: I do not support the proposal for a flat tax. I know that the shadow Chancellor once dabbled with that idea, but I think he quickly abandoned it-for sensible reasons. The hon. Gentleman made a perfectly fair point about complex legislation. He will know of our strong support for the tax rewrite project, which I believe has been more or less been concluded and which has made a helpful contribution, but he may not be aware that a number of simplification reviews are under way. He may be encouraged to learn that according to the World Bank's assessment of taxes paid around the world, the United Kingdom is-I think I remember rightly-the easiest country in Europe in which to pay tax. Of course it is important for us to maintain those advantages as the tax system develops further in the future.
	Our choices throughout this turbulent period have proved to be the right ones-

John Redwood: rose-

Stephen Timms: I will give way one last time.

John Redwood: I cannot allow the Minister's last observation to go unchallenged. How does he explain the extraordinary decisions first to starve the money markets of funds in 2007 and weaken the banks, and then to publicly demand that the banks raise more capital too late-when they could not do it-and to jeopardise them or bring them down? How can that be described as calling the shots correctly?

Stephen Timms: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to an experience that he will remember very well-that of the recessions of the 1980s and 1990s. In both those recessions, when the global circumstances were much less difficult than those that we have experienced in the last couple of years, the number of people claiming unemployment benefit rose to 3 million. At present it is a little over 1.6 million: it has fallen over the last few months. During the recession of the 1990s, business failures were running at about twice the rate at which they have been running during the current recession. At its peak, the number of home repossessions was 75,000 during the 1990s recession. At the beginning of last year, the Council of Mortgage Lenders predicted that it would be 75,000 again, but I believe it was 43,000.
	I think it is clear that the approaches we have adopted to the problems encountered around the world have been the right ones, and have greatly limited the damage that would otherwise have been suffered. Indeed, much less damage has been suffered than was the case in the 1980s and 1990s. The Finance Bill keeps us firmly on the right track, and I commend it to the House.

Mark Hoban: "Four hours for all the stages of the Finance Bill from start to finish...is...a most extraordinary precedent...due not to accident or misfortune but to the sheer incompetence and mismanagement of the Government".-[ Official Report, 13 March 1992; Vol. 205, c. 1140-41.]
	Those are not my words but those of the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown), spoken from the Opposition Benches about the passage of the Finance Bill in 1992. He considered four hours to be an unacceptable period in which to debate 11 clauses, and perhaps he was right. It is far from ideal. But now that the right hon. Gentleman has risen to the rank of Chief Whip, and is principally responsible for the incompetence and mismanagement of the Government's business programme, he thinks that three hours is enough time in which to debate 70-odd clauses.
	In view of the shortness of the debate, it is probably just as well that the Government broke with precedent and arranged for the Financial Secretary to the Treasury rather than the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to open it. Given his performance last week, it is unlikely that the Chief Secretary would have made it to the Chamber for the end of the debate, let alone the start. I also note that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) has maintained his fine record for not taking part in discussion of the detail of the Finance Bill. Although he has been nominated for delegated legislation Committees and been selected to serve on Committees dealing with many Treasury Bills, he never seems to arrive on time.

Robert Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mark Hoban: I will happily give way to the hon. Friend of the hon. Member for Twickenham.

Robert Smith: Let me return the hon. Gentleman to his complaint about the amount of time allotted to the Bill. When the House had a chance to vote on the issue, his party whipped its members through the Lobby to endorse the allotted time and force it on the House.

Mark Hoban: The point is that even four hours would not have been enough to cover 72 clauses-yet back in 1992, those who are now in government complained that that was not enough time in which to debate 11 clauses.
	I have made my point about the lack of time. The people who look at Finance Bill proceedings-the outside interest groups-are concerned that this Bill is being rushed through and that insufficient time is being given to consider it. I do not know what the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) thinks a reasonable period would be. I do not believe that he has served on a Finance Bill Committee, although perhaps he will have that pleasure in the next Parliament, should he be returned. I can tell him that many days of detailed scrutiny are required, and even if every hour between now and Prorogation tomorrow evening had been available to us, I do not think that we would have made as much progress through the Bill as people would have wanted us to do.
	The danger is that the Bill will receive poor scrutiny. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales said of the 2005 Finance Bill:
	"Huge swathes of complicated and often poorly drafted legislation have been passed into law 'at a stroke' with little or no debate and certainly no time for proper consideration and consultation. It calls into question whether parliament is fulfilling its constitutional duty to scrutinise legislation."
	I suspect that the institute would not depart far from that opinion in respect of this year's Bill.

William Cash: I hope that my hon. Friend will take what I am about to say in good part. As far as I am aware, our party is acquiescing in much of this, so we are perhaps to some extent contributing to the fact that this legislation, which will be either ill considered or unconsidered, is to be allowed through, in so far as it has not been excluded by amendments. I am sure that the Minister will introduce those in Committee. There is a bit of a problem there for all of us, is there not?

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend makes a helpful intervention, as he so often does on these occasions. I should say to him that it is the obligation of parties on both sides of the House, and of whoever forms the next Government, to listen to the concerns raised about the measures that we have passed, to understand where those measures are defective and to think about how they can be remedied in the future. Even when a Finance Bill receives full scrutiny, so often the Government-this is particularly true of the present Government-come back for a second bite of the cherry the following year just to tidy up the detail of the legislation in areas where perhaps proper, full consultation has not taken place. I wish to highlight some of the areas where adequate consultation has not taken place, and there are holes that the Government will need to think about carefully.
	This Finance Bill contains much that is controversial, much that could be improved by scrutiny and much that could be amended, but Parliament has been denied that opportunity because the Government opted for the latest possible date for a Budget, thus precluding the opportunity to have a longer debate about the Bill. The Bill tells the tale of things left out, of things that should have been included in it, and of items that need further scrutiny and consultation.
	Let us consider what is not in the Bill. The first things not included are the tax hikes planned by this Government for after polling day. The Prime Minister said on the steps of No. 10 Downing street yesterday:
	"I have fought so hard for families on middle and modest incomes."
	But they are the people who will have to pick up the bill for the Government's economic record after the election. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) intervened on the Financial Secretary to ask why national insurance increases planned for April 2011 are not in this Bill. Obviously, the Financial Secretary said that that Bill would come into effect in the next Parliament, but it is a pity that the Government did not have the courage of their convictions and did not seek to table that measure now for debate, because we could then have made the argument here in this House about the need to roll back those increases to protect those on the middle and modest incomes to whom the Prime Minister referred yesterday.
	Let us also not forget that this is about protecting not just those people's incomes but their employment. My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) caught out the Chancellor on that last week in the Treasury Committee, when he probed the Chancellor as to whether he had taken into account the impact on unemployment. The Centre for Economics and Business Research has said that in addition to raising the tax burden on families, 57,000 people would lose their jobs as a consequence of the Government's planned national insurance increase. Is this what the Chancellor meant when he said:
	"We think the impact is manageable, it will be limited"?
	It certainly will not feel manageable or limited to the 57,000 people who will lose their jobs if the Government's plans go through.
	Richard Lambert, the director general of the CBI, has said the following of our plans to oppose this tax hike:
	"The Conservatives' plan to reduce next year's increase in employers' NICs is welcome, and will help large and small businesses alike."
	He continued:
	"NICs are a tax on jobs and increasing them is a bad idea when we want to promote job creation. We continue to call for the proposed increase to be cancelled entirely, as and when action on the public finances makes this possible."
	I wonder whether the Financial Secretary believes that the head of the CBI has been deceived, and whether he adopts the same line as the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills about the opposition that nearly 60 business leaders have expressed to the Government's tax on jobs. Other things have been left out, too. There is no reference in the Bill or in the Chancellor's Budget statement to the freeze on personal allowances-another stealthy tax grab by this Government.
	Of course, there are some things in the Bill of which we do approve. The two-year first-time buyer's stamp duty holiday is welcome, but if the Government had wanted to copy our policy properly they would not have stuck a two-year time limit on it. The reduction in bingo duty was something for which we argued in the Budget last year, and we expect to hear "David's den-No. 10" to be called in bingo houses across the country in celebration of the Government's climbdown.
	Despite those points, the Bill is not in as poor shape as it might have been. Three tax rises on families and businesses have been scrapped and the measure attacking small and new businesses has been dropped-all as a consequence of Conservative opposition. The Government have been forced into a U-turn on cider by us, and the swingeing increase in the duty on normal strength cider will be reversed on 30 June so cider will be treated like any other drink; that will mean an 8 per cent. cut in duty rates. Again, as the Financial Secretary made very clear in the opening stages of his speech, the Government have pledged to reverse that if they are returned on 6 May. Cider drinkers have a choice: do they back the Government's across-the-board hike in the tax on a pint of cider, or do they back our option of increasing the tax on super-strength ciders, rewarding responsible drinkers and clamping down on problem drinkers?
	We know how important furnished holiday cottages and flats are to the tourist trade, to rural areas and to seaside towns. That is why we forced the Government to drop their plans to increase taxes. According to the Tourism Alliance, 120,000 businesses would have been affected and 4,500 jobs lost at a cost to the UK economy of £200 million. We would consult on a regime to allow holiday cottages to be treated as a trade on a fiscally neutral basis. So people have another choice: another tax increase on business under Labour, or reforms to help the tourist trade under the Conservatives.
	The telephone tax has also been dropped. A £7 per year tax on families and businesses has been binned. That was a tax that was attacked by the industry as regressive and disruptive, a tax which ordinary families would have to pay. Virgin Media said the duty
	"risks distorting the market by penalising fixed line broadband and potentially disrupting existing next generation broadband investment plans".
	Andrew Heaney, executive director of strategy and regulation at TalkTalk, said:
	"The broadband tax is an unfair, regressive, and wasteful way of funding superfast broadband which would deliver less benefit than it will cost, slow superfast broadband roll-out and drive around 200,000 homes off broadband."
	One might think that someone from TalkTalk would say that-but the figure for the number of houses that would come off broadband was the figure given in the Government's regulatory impact assessment. Far from unlocking investment, the telephone tax would clearly hamper it, and we got it dropped. That is another choice that people will have to make: a regressive tax adding to the burdens placed by this Government on families, or no tax on families and businesses and reforms to roll out broadband under a Conservative Government.
	Lastly, we have also removed the proposals for security of payment of pay-as-you-earn. In the Financial Secretary's letter to the Chartered Institute of Taxation, he said that where the Government have not consulted they would explain why not. Pending that explanation on these provisions, we have taken matters into our hands and forced the Government to drop them. The problem was that a criminal offence was being created in connection with a requirement that had not been properly explained or scrutinised. The CIOT put it best when it said:
	"If enacted, there are concerns that the provisions could be applied to many small businesses facing cash flow problems in the current financial recession, leading to a number being put out of business at a time when the economy is starting to pick up."
	The Bill gives the Treasury power to make regulations to require businesses to offer security for PAYE bills, but there are no safeguards in the Bill and nothing to protect businesses from the heavy hand of HMRC. It seems wholly at odds with the Government's much-trumpeted time to pay scheme to introduce such a measure at this time.
	The Government's message stresses the importance of locking in the recovery, yet the Budget and the Finance Bill contain measures that will hurt small businesses and families, and we know that there are still more in the pipeline. There is concern that some of the measures that remain in the Bill have not been properly thought through and consulted on. We might not have much time in the Committee of the whole House to go through the Bill clause by clause, but I want to touch on a few of those measures now. I have chosen as examples measures that, although they are probably well-intentioned, might need to be revisited because of the lack of proper parliamentary scrutiny.
	There is still widespread concern about the provisions in clause 24 and the 12 pages of schedule 3 about the taxation of pension contributions by higher-rate income tax payers. In addition to the pages in the Bill, there are 74 pages of detailed technical notes. We have no argument with the Government's seeking to protect revenues by restricting tax relief for higher earners, but there are widespread concerns about the cost and complexity of the provisions.
	As I said in an intervention on the Financial Secretary, within two months the one-off costs of implementation have tripled. I hope that when the Exchequer Secretary winds up she will give a fuller explanation of why those costs have tripled over such a short period. Given the number of areas that the Financial Secretary has outlined in which greater clarification is needed about how the rules will work in practice, I wonder whether those costs will continue to rise. We need to make sure that the Government's chosen measure of restricting the value of tax relief is the most straightforward and least expensive option available. The Chartered Institute of Taxation has said that the measures were drafted in such a way as to put a heavy and expensive administrative burden on employers, employees and pensions provisions.
	The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales has said:
	"The proposals are highly complex and will be difficult for those affected to understand, often creating unexpected and very high tax liabilities for those at whom the proposals were not aimed."
	We will not oppose the measures at this stage because of the principle of protecting revenue, but we ought at this time to look very carefully at how they could be improved to make them easier for people to understand, easier to administer and cheaper to collect.
	In clause 31, on charities and community sports clubs, a new definition of "fit and proper persons", with regard to those working with charities and sports clubs, is offered without proper debate or scrutiny. That would be monitored by HMRC rather than the Charity Commission, which is a major change.
	On clause 35, the CIOT has again expressed concern about some of the technical details arising from the proposed changes to the remittance arrangements and the prevention of certain capital gains tax rules from producing allowable capital losses on disposals of amounts in foreign currency bank accounts.
	Clause 36, on which the Financial Secretary and I had an exchange during his remarks, has been criticised by the low incomes tax reform group about the impact that it could have on unrepresented low-income taxpayers. Let me quote from its representations:
	"Many unrepresented taxpayers who will be caught by these new provisions actually come from overseas territories which are likely to be placed in category 2 or 3. Will a Gurkha be affected because we do not have a double taxation agreement with Nepal? Will a nurse coming from a West Indian island without the 'correct' HMRC designation be affected disproportionately? Is every mistake in relation to a source of income or gains in their home country to be penalised at one-and-a-half times or double the normal rate, simply because of where they come from?"
	The Financial Secretary will no doubt be aware of the experiences of the Minister for Borders and Immigration and the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), who has responsibility for veterans. They have both come off worse after locking horns with the Gurkhas. Does he want to be the Gurkhas' third scalp? We need to think carefully about how those on low incomes are going to be able to comply with the provisions, while ensuring that proportionate action is taken with regard to others.
	Clause 57, which the Minister mentioned, contains controversial provisions on information that promoters and users of certain tax avoidance schemes have to disclose to HMRC, and it imposes new penalties for non-compliance. There are several options to achieve the same goal. The ICAEW has said:
	"The existing £5,000 penalty will be replaced, it is proposed, with a daily £600 penalty. This £600 daily penalty was one of the two options set out in the consultation document but we preferred the option which provided for an increase in the penalty to the extent that there has been non-compliant behaviour by the promoter or user. We remain strongly of that view that this would be a better option."
	We have not had time to debate that clause in detail, or to explore which conclusion-the ICAEW's or the Government's-was right.
	Does not clause 66 say something about our tax system, in that it appears that we will have to have a special Champion's League final tax exemption to enable us to hold next year's final? Will that open the floodgate for other changes? Will the Royal and Ancient push for competitors in the Open to be exempt if they are not resident in the UK? Will Lady Gaga refuse to tour the UK unless the next Finance Act is amended?
	The Government need to provide a much better rational for why these exemptions are in the Bill than they have done so far. Perhaps the Exchequer Secretary will be able to refer to that in her winding-up speech.
	There is a long shopping list of concerns about this Bill that are usually rehearsed during the Committee stage or addressed through ministerial statements or amendments. Those opportunities are not available to us today, as a result of this accelerated process.
	This Finance Bill is a testament to the dying days of a Labour Government. It is evidence of all that we have known about this Government. The best ideas are pinched from us, and it is a rag-bag of measures with no narrative, from a Government who have run out of steam. The fact that it is being rammed through in a matter of hours shows a brazen disregard for Parliament. In this area, as in so many, the problems of today are being left for tomorrow's Government to resolve.

Matthew Taylor: It seems rather extraordinary for the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) to criticise the Government for their brazen disregard of Parliament in short-circuiting debate on the Bill, when it is of course the two main parties that decide the timetable and agree which measures will remain in the Bills discussed during this wash-up period, after the general election has been called. People will wonder how far they can trust what they hear in the election, so comments of that nature are not a great start.
	The reality of how business is conducted and timetabled here means that the Conservative and Labour parties have every opportunity to decide such matters. Other parties do not get the same privilege, so it is a mistake to make comments that so mislead people.

Mark Hoban: Does the hon. Gentleman therefore accept that his party played no role in the amendments to the cider duty that have been introduced this afternoon?

Matthew Taylor: We played a fundamental role in respect of the cider duty, in that we campaigned against it. I imagine that that is what lies behind the Conservative party taking the position that it has taken. It has taken the credit for the changes to the cider duty when they were announced. That is another example of a quick U-turn by Conservative Front Benchers.

Greg Hands: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but we really must clear up his mix-up on the cider duty. Last year, the Liberal Democrats proposed freezing duty on spirits, but not on cider.

Matthew Taylor: That is rather different from proposing a substantial increase in cider duty, for which the Conservative party claimed credit but which it now opposes.

Greg Hands: rose-

Matthew Taylor: I think that we should move on from the knockabout, as it does no one any particular justice.
	I want to begin my remarks by concentrating on the big picture that underpins the Finance Bill, rather than on the detail of individual clauses. Massive choices have to be made about how we go forward, in the light of the credit crunch and its impact on Government budgets. It has also impacted on the real world of people's lives, jobs and housing, and on their ability to afford homes and to provide for their families. Risks remain of a further downturn in the economy and a double-dip recession, and there are questions about the economy's real value and worth.
	How much of what happened in the last decade or so was real, and how much was unreal? We must never forget that we face the deficits that we face mainly because what was assumed to be real economic growth has been recast, at a stroke of a Treasury pen, as not growth at all, and therefore not real income.

William Cash: I do not know what the position of the hon. Gentleman's party is on the actual debt, but to provide for the shortfall and to deal realistically with the reduction of the deficit, does he agree that the bottom line-as seen by bond markets, credit risk agencies and so on-is the net debt, which is at least three times the amount of debt disclosed by the Government in the pre-Budget statement?

Matthew Taylor: I would go a little further. It is not just a matter of those forms of debt, but debt in the wider economy-family indebtedness right through the economy. When we look at the figures as a whole, they show Britain not as a relatively low-debt economy, which the raw Government data still do, but as one of the most indebted nations in the world. Such issues are fundamental to what has happened to the British economy and to our response. They will be pivotal to the success or otherwise of whoever is in government in a few weeks' time.
	In addressing the issues, we need to consider two big questions. The first relates to timing. I am not a simple Keynesian but I believe nevertheless that around the world-it is not just a British issue-we are coping relatively well with a massive shock to the banking systems and the wider economies of the world. The reason why our unemployment has not risen as projected and why growth is resuming, albeit at low levels, is that there has been willingness to invest massively to counter the withdrawal of credit by the private sector by maintaining and bringing forward significant Government spending. That means that the timing of the withdrawal of that spending, and the degree to which we can expect the private sector to pick up the necessary investment that will keep the economy moving forward and growing, is absolutely fundamental to whoever is in government.
	The knockabout in the papers, which will involve all sides, portrays a Conservative party looking for earlier cuts, while Labour and the Liberal Democrats say that the timing is not yet right, which I believe is fundamentally correct. Anybody tempted to say, when they are being canvassed on the doorstep, "I am not interested. You're all just the same. It makes no difference how I vote," should be under no illusion: what we have seen in the past 12 months, and the response to it, and what we shall see in the next 12 months and the response to that, will be absolutely critical to what happens next in the wider economy.
	We may disagree about the timing. We may disagree-and we do-about when the decisions should be taken, but for people to throw away their vote in the election, or perhaps not vote at all believing that their vote makes no difference, would be the wrong call.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman some latitude, because this is a Second Reading, but it is of the Finance Bill rather than the economy in general. Perhaps his remarks in future could bear some relation to the Bill before the House.

Matthew Taylor: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

John Redwood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Matthew Taylor: I will in a moment, but I want to make the point that the decisions we are debating-about which taxes to raise and about how many taxes there are-fundamentally underpin both the question about the timing of the withdrawal of Government spend, and my next question, which is the balance between how much is raised through tax and how much is delivered through cutting back spending. There is a third issue, which is the fairness of distribution.

John Redwood: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify what the Liberal Democrats think about the wisdom of making cuts of £700 billion on the RBS balance sheet in a single year? The Government shrank the balance sheet by that amount-it is half of national income, judged by UK standards-so what impact will that have on tax revenue and activity levels?

Matthew Taylor: I will not go into the technicalities, but we need to be straight about the balance sheets and to tackle the underlying problems in the banking sector. We need to separate the investment and gambling side of what the banks do from the retail side, and we therefore need substantial further reform.

Stewart Hosie: The hon. Gentleman is right about timing and the balance of the way in which we tackle the deficit, but on the last day of the Budget debate, his colleague, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), made the point that the Liberal Democrats were on the same page as Labour. The UK will have no fiscal stimulus this year. Real-terms cuts are beginning this year, and £57 billion will come out of the economy in the single year of 2013-14. Does the hon. Gentleman think that that balance is right?

Matthew Taylor: The evidence from the economy is that we are just about there. If we spend too much, we build up debt or tax problems for the future, but if we spend too little, the economy falls down. The small but real growth that we see suggests that, broadly speaking, the present balance might be right, but the question is whether the detail-that is what we are examining in the Bill-is correctly drawn, and I do not believe that that is the case.

Greg Hands: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what the savage cuts for which his party's leader has called might involve?

Matthew Taylor: The hon. Gentleman invites me-

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind all hon. Members of my earlier comments about the fact that we are discussing the Finance Bill.

Matthew Taylor: We have set out a series of tax changes that should be in the Bill. They are largely designed to move the burden that we are asking people to weather away from those on lower incomes. To pay for that, we would ask the more privileged on higher incomes to sacrifice some of their allowances, which I have never thought fair in any case. For example, we would deal with the distortion created by the tax reliefs on pensions that give more support to those on the highest incomes than people on the lowest, especially because we know that those on the lowest incomes are the people who struggle the most to have sufficient pensions.
	The Conservatives propose a series of measures that are effectively tax cuts, but we do not believe that that is right either, because we need to prioritise maintaining economic growth and targeting those areas that require more support, especially education and giving those from the poorest backgrounds the opportunity to come out of the circumstances in which they were born.

David Gauke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Matthew Taylor: If I were to give way to the hon. Gentleman, I think that we would both be reminded that we are already straying a little far from the Bill.
	Let me reiterate that the first issue relates to timing and that the second relates to distribution and the fairness of what we do. I do not believe that what the Government are doing in that regard is good, but what is offered by the Conservative party is worse, as it rewards those who have rather than those who have not. Our approach is designed to reward hard-working people on low incomes, and we believe that the Bill should relieve the tax burden on such people. In a way that other parties have not, we have set out specific cuts that need to take place to services and things that we do not believe are necessary, and I do not step back from that.
	I started by saying that, clearly, this Finance Bill goes to the heart of the debates that will take place during the general election campaign. Clearly, whoever is next in government will make real decisions that will affect families all over the country. Twenty-three years ago, I came into Parliament on Budget day, after the by-election that followed the tragic death of my predecessor, David Penhaligon, who was the finance spokesman for the Liberal party, as it then was. I had been working with him on economic policy and I happened to be from Truro, so I was asked to stand in that by-election. I am leaving the House at the general election, because I do not believe it is a great place for the dad of a two-year-old and a three-year-old to be when they are at school in Cornwall and I am here. I think it is time for a change anyway, after having been here for 23 years. It may be a relief to all that I am leaving. It has been a privilege to represent the seat.
	My first speech was made during the debate on that Budget and my first Committee work was on that Finance Bill. I saw that through, then a general election was called and I had to do it all again, so I became familiar with Finance Bills more quickly than anybody really deserves, particularly at the age of 24. Nobody should be under any illusion that what we had then in government was a fundamentally different approach to the tax system and spending from what we have today. Nobody should be under any illusion that what we had in response to recession in the 1980s and again in the 1990s was fundamentally different from what we have seen recently-more Keynesian, positive investment to keep down unemployment and no talk of unemployment being a price worth paying. However, in my view, the balance has not been got right on fairness-we see inequality increasing, not narrowing, in this country. The balance has not been got right in terms of setting out the real detail of what needs to be done to tackle the problems.
	It behoves this place to be more honest with people, and it behoves the general election campaign to be more honest than it has been. I hope that the result of the leaders' debates and the challenges put down by the press and the public during the campaign will force out of everyone more detail than I dare say the manifestos will supply. That is one of the great advantages of democracy: the unexpected question from a member of the public often finds the detail that Parliament rarely does.
	I hope that, for my children, the election will result in a Government who are committed to investment in education and the protection of the environment. Especially because my three-year-old has been going through cancer treatment and I have seen the real impact of the investment in the NHS at Great Ormond Street hospital, I hope that it is true-all the leaders say so-that all three parties are genuinely committed to investment in a national health service that is free for all at the levels and in the ways that people need when they need its help. To those who think that there is a lot of money sloshing around, I say that some of the facilities and staff at Great Ormond Street are undoubtedly among the best in the world, but anyone who thinks that it is overfunded needs to spend a little time there.
	I am delighted that the leaders of all three main parties have young children, because that keeps their feet on the ground. I am delighted-not about the reasons why-that both the Conservative and the Labour leaders understand the importance of the NHS, because they have had children who have had to be recipients of the best care in the world. Let us keep it like that.

John Redwood: I remind the House that I have declared in the Register of Members' Financial Interests the fact that I advise an industrial and an investment company.
	This is a disgraceful end to a dreadful Parliament. Tonight, we are invited to hasten through the large and contentious Digital Economy Bill, which we were able to debate only briefly yesterday, revealing the degree of disagreement about it. At the same time, we are given a very short time to debate Second Reading of the Finance Bill, and several other Bills have been rushed through today.
	Of course, Ministers are right to say that any Government coming to the end of their term or seeking re-election in springtime may need to put a Finance Bill through Parliament quite quickly, but the convention has always been that if they need to do that, they put through a short, basic Bill, just to keep the revenues flowing in, and they make the big decisions in a later Budget, when there is proper time for a big Bill and proper scrutiny.
	It really does beggar belief that we have been placed in this invidious position yet again. Most people in this country who are interested in politics have had 6 May in their diary as the general election date for many months. It appears that the only person in the country who had not got that clarity of view was the Prime Minister, but he got there in the end, and decided that the election would indeed be on the date that everyone else had put into their grids, plans and media schedules. So why on earth did the Government not hold the Budget at the beginning rather than the end of March? Why on earth, having held a late Budget, did the Government not get on with a more rapid preparation of the Finance Bill? In the past couple of weeks, when the House has not been that busy, we could have had a stab at debating it properly.
	I do not object to having a Finance Bill that keeps the revenues coming in over the election; of course I understand the need for that, given the amount that the Government are spending and having to borrow. But I do object to being given 167 pages of Finance Bill on almost the last day of serious parliamentary business, and to being told that there will be just a few hours in which to debate all its stages.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) and his Front-Bench colleagues wisely said to the Government that they must strike out three of the nasty little tax increases and new taxes that they wanted to place in the Bill, and I am delighted that the Government have agreed to do that; that is an improvement to the version of the Bill that we have in our hands for this debate. So recent was the agreement that we do not even have the right document to debate; the one that I have still does not have the necessary changes or amendments to the Government's line. The Government must have known that the Opposition would not let through the new taxes or tax changes, which would have had adverse effects on important groups in our country, yet we are still given a text that implies that those measures will be introduced.
	Like my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham, I welcome lowered bingo duty, the exemption from stamp duty and the other few crumbs in the Bill that recognise that Britain is now a grossly overtaxed country, and that high taxes are now an impediment to enterprise, growth and success-things that all Members here surely want. However, we had to listen to the Minister wandering off the subject and saying, in his opening remarks, that the Government got every economic call right, and I find that very difficult to accept.
	This is the Government who said that they had abolished boom and bust, but they put the economy through the biggest boom and bust that any of us have ever seen in our lifetimes-a boom and bust far bigger than anything inflicted on this country since the great recession of the 1930s. This is the Government whose calls included building a debt mountain in the public and private sectors with easy money and low interest rates up to 2007, and who then decided to trigger an avalanche of debt collapse and collapsing asset prices by withdrawing all the money and restricting the banks too late in the cycle. That threatened the banks themselves and brought the system almost to its knees. This was the boom-and-bust Government to beat all boom-and-bust Governments. This is the Government who did unparalleled damage to our economy, yet the Minister dares to come here this evening to make party political points about how they got everything right. He should be concentrating on this mean and miserable Finance Bill, which he wishes to rush through without proper scrutiny.
	Why do we need proper scrutiny of a Finance Bill? We need it because many people's livelihoods and working futures depend on the tax legislation that this and other Governments put through Parliament. Every one of the clauses could create joblessness, difficulty for a business, or problems for someone trying to wrestle with the complexities of an economy scarcely out of recession and performing very lamely and badly.
	The Bill ranges extremely widely. We are asked to agree to items on income tax, corporation tax, capital gains tax, stamp duty land lax, inheritance tax, alcohol and tobacco duties, vehicle excise duties, fuel duties, environmental taxes, gambling, new taxes, losses and capital allowances, charities, the remittance basis relating to taxation, and international tax matters-and I am not even halfway through the list that we are invited to consider.
	It is an insult to the people we represent, to the House of Commons and to democracy that the Government say they wish to strengthen that we are given this very shortened time when most colleagues wish to be back in their constituencies, starting to dust down their campaign plans, or carry on with the campaigns that some have already started, for obvious reasons, particularly those who worry about how their electorate might respond to the way that the Government whom they support have been handling events.
	It is difficult to allow all this to go through without proper scrutiny because it means that none of these clauses has been properly tested. We have not had the chance to consult experts outside on whether each of the clauses will do what the Government intend, and we have not been able to consult people who will experience the impact of those clauses to see whether what the Government intend is fair and reasonable, given the parlous state of the British economy as we meet here this evening.

William Cash: Just to take one example, which I hope to come on to in a moment, does my right hon. Friend, or could anybody, including the Ministers, have the foggiest idea what the "appropriate pension increase" is when it is defined as (ACP x CAPARF) - (UOP x OAPARF)?

John Redwood: Indeed, that has defeated me, and my hon. Friend is right to point out that that is exactly the kind of complexity that in a normal Committee stage we would ask a Minister to explain, and a good Minister would be able to explain it and a not-so-good Minister would know an official who could help to explain it, and we would also have had the chance to consult people who are experts in the field so that we could either pass over something quickly because the experts said it was perfectly reasonable, or they would say it would not work or would have unforeseen consequences. The inability to give it such attention will doubtless mean that the Government and their successor will come to regret the legislation, and will doubtless mean that some future House of Commons has to reopen these issues and put them right.
	There is also a very complicated formula relating to capital allowances on page 81, similar to the pension formula that my hon. Friend read out. I will not detain the House by reading it out, because it is quite obvious that no one here today is equipped to discuss it sensibly. It means that these complicated matters will go through on the nod, not only with insufficient explanation but probably proposed by Ministers who have not teased them out and understood them fully, and certainly approved by a House of Commons that has not had the chance to do its normal job.
	Voters elect to this House a variety of people with a range of experiences, talents and skills, and often individual Members have the experience needed to tease something out. But the complicated area of tax law, where the whole panoply of accumulated tax law is enormous, thanks to this Government's legislative energy, is one area where we all feel that we need some professional advice before we can do our job of scrutinising the Finance Bill.

William Cash: Does my right hon. Friend agree that part of the problem is not just the complexity, but the consequence for and the burden on the taxpayer, who then has to employ accountants, lawyers, QCs and so on, at enormous expense, which thereby reduces our ability to be an enterprising nation?

John Redwood: I entirely agree. I favour lower taxes because they are fair and raise more revenue, and I think they raise more revenue for that very reason. Lower and simpler taxes impose less of a burden on people, who are then more willing to work harder and do not have to spend so much of their working time dealing with complicated tax issues to avoid falling foul of growingly complex and difficult to understand legislation.
	We are now in the position where many people subject to a specialist tax in their area cannot understand the formula or the rationale and need to take on expensive tax advice to comply with the legislation. This can apply to quite small businesses that do not have that kind of resource and are not used to employing expensive accountants or lawyers but are forced into doing so by the enormous complexity.
	So it is with a very heavy heart that I see that the Government's dying wish is to go out as they came in and be remembered as the Government who did more than any other we have known to add to the volume of tax legislation and the complexity and imperfect working of the tax system. Many Governments have queued up to win that prize, but this Government have beaten the rest of them hands down with their doubling of the length and complexity of the tax provisions in this country. To slide out 167 pages, 71 clauses and attached schedules this late in the Parliament, and then to offer us no time in which to probe or examine them, is typical of them but a complete disgrace.
	The time available this evening does not permit me to go through the Bill even generally, clause by clause, much as I would like to and my colleagues would be grateful if I did not. However, that illustrates what is wrong with the situation: a 71-clause Bill, tackling every major tax and quite a few minor taxes in the country, with a view to changing them in some way and often to increase the amount of money that they raise, will not be properly scrutinised because of the way the Government have decided to behave.
	The Government claim to have made all the calls correctly but they need a Finance Bill to raise more money. This, of course, is not that Finance Bill, because it is the pre-election Finance Bill, and we have already heard from the Minister that it does not include one of their main tax-raising proposals, which, if they win the election, will be the national insurance tax increase. So we know that the Government would have to come back to the House with more tax-raising legislation, but we know also that, even with their limited ambitions for deficit reduction in the next year or two, there is still a big black hole in their total figures. We know that the Budget, when delivered, did not have a proper statement of spending plans and cuts. There was a global figure for many cuts, but we do not know where they will fall or how they will be handled. And we know that there was a global figure for tax increases. The Government will say that this Bill does some of the work on that, but it in no way covers all the increased tax revenue that they have forecast, because they wish a bigger share of the deficit reduction to be achieved by tax increases than the Conservative Opposition do.

Nicholas Winterton: My right hon. Friend has just mentioned the imminent increase in national insurance, although it is not part of the Finance Bill. Surely, however, that must be part of our debate, because it will affect employment in manufacturing and commerce. At Prime Minister's questions today, the Prime Minister made great play saying that the increase was necessary to provide for education and the health service, but what is more important: increasing our manufacturing capacity and output, and thereby increasing our tax revenues; or harming manufacturing industry merely to sustain what are, I accept, important-education and the health service?

John Redwood: Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not think my hon. Friend was in the Chamber for your very wise advice to others in this debate-that we must stick to the contents of the Finance Bill, or to the things we would like to see in it, because some of us would have liked to move amendments to improve it, but we will not be able to do so owing to the restricted time. I fear that, because national insurance will be legislated for differently, it does not strictly fall within that remit. However, I think my hon. Friend stayed in order, because he wisely said that the national insurance increase could have such a damaging impact on the general state of the economy-it will definitely restrict growth and it is a tax on jobs, as even Ministers admit-that it could damage the revenues for which the Bill makes provision.
	At the beginning of the debate, I tried to tease out of the Minister by way of an intervention what he thought the revenue loss would be on his figures if we struck out or modified the four clauses to which Opposition Front Benchers object. He said that in a full year he thought it would cost £220 million. However, other measures in the Bill and more generally could lose the Government rather more revenue than that, because they have made such an assault on enterprise, business, growth and development that they might find that higher tax rates, far from yielding the increased revenue that their models predict, yield rather less or, in some cases, even lead to a drop. We may well find that there are timing differences on tax payments and that there is a change in the place of residence to which businesses and rich individuals might relocate. The Government might find that they have gone over the top with the rates and will have a problem filling part of their budget black hole through the tax revenue that they will collect if they stay in office.
	On all those grounds, this is a very bad Bill. It is not a Bill for recovery, because it does not offer the tax incentives for growth that one would expect to see. It confirms the pattern of taxing more and subsidising more that has characterised the more recent years of this Government's lack of progress. It greatly increases the complexity and detail of the tax code in a way that is wholly inimical to the wish of honest people to get on with earning a good living and running a good business, as my hon. Friends and I have sought to set out. Above all, it misses the main points because it does not tackle the spending side of the equation, which is being kept secret until after the election, or bring in some of the biggest tax rises that the Government are planning, which have to be introduced in another way.
	The Government are now attempting to drive the car of the economy with one foot flat on the accelerator pedal, trying to create as much easy money as possible, and the other flat on the brake because they are trying to restrict the banks as much as possible. That is, of course, the way to go absolutely nowhere. It surprises me that they can present a Finance Bill such as this and say that it is part of a package of recovery, when we have experienced the longest recession of any of the major economies and had about the feeblest signs up upturn. The Government say that that means we have done very well, but it clearly means that we have done very badly. It is quite obvious why-they chose the wrong point of the cycle at which to clobber and restrict the banks. They should have restricted, managed and regulated them properly on the way up and not brought them juddering to a halt as they did in 2007-08.
	The Government are still doing that to the banks, as I have been trying to illustrate to Members on the Treasury Bench, by taking £700 billion out of the balance sheet of our leading bank, the Royal Bank of Scotland, which they happen to own. No Treasury Minister has ever explained why they are doing that. This Bill contains provisions for another tax on banks-I understand how popular that is-but does not make provisions for expanding banks. Surely what we need, if we are to have a positive and strong recovery, is banks that can expand their lending to British business and individuals sensibly, so that there is an increase in private sector demand as well as the limited increases in public sector spending that the Government think represent the way to a recovery.
	Driving with one foot on the accelerator and one on the brake is the way to go absolutely nowhere. The Government are creating a lop-sided economy with fast-expanding public spending and fast-contracting private sector debt and activity in many areas. That is the way to national bankruptcy. This Finance Bill will not raise anything like enough revenue to pay for the huge amount of spending that they are proposing. Their model of running the economy will not lead to a rapid recovery of the kind that we desperately need, and it will not create the jobs that we need to get people off benefit. That is the type of public spending cut that I would like to see-really big cuts in the social security programme because people have gone back to work or got a job for the first time and do not need benefit any more. Surely that is a cut that we can all agree on, but the Bill will not deliver it because it does not provide the friendly tax environment for business and enterprise that must be required if we are to get a decent recovery.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) made an excellent response to the Budget and reminded the House that, under this Government's lack of tender care, the UK has gone from being the fourth best tax regime for business in the free world to being the 84th best, which is a dreadful reduction in our tax competitiveness as a result of the measures in this and other recent Finance Bills. That is why our economy is not going anywhere-because of an anti-enterprise Finance Bill and because the Government will not sort the banks out properly. Until Ministers can explain to the House why they have pursued a boom and bust policy towards the banks, we will not have a proper explanation of the mess we are in, and until they come forward with a Finance Bill that is pro-enterprise, we are not going anywhere fast.
	I hope that this farce of a Finance Bill will end as soon as is humanely possible. We need a new Budget that does the spending and taxation together and is honest with the British people about both sides of the equation. We need a new Budget that leads to a proper Finance Bill that has rates of tax that might support and promote growth.

Stewart Hosie: The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) is right about the lack of time to debate and scrutinise the Bill. We would normally have about three months, but today we have about three hours. It is not simply the lack of scrutiny by right hon. and hon. Members; it is the lack of scrutiny by outside professional bodies that do such an invaluable job for us all. Only a few years ago, the Government introduced the real estate investment trust regime, which they had to change within a year or two, and which was subjected to intense internal and external scrutiny. However, many of the measures in the Finance Bill are being subjected to no scrutiny whatsoever.
	I do not intend to speak for long, but my main concern is that, although this might be billed as a Finance Bill for growth and fiscal consolidation, as far as I am concerned it does very little to encourage the key thing-growth in the economy. It has been mentioned already that the national insurance changes, which will limit businesses' ability to recruit and take spending power away from local economies, are not in the Bill, but many other things are. It includes provisions for three fuel duty rises-that is in addition to the three that we have had in the past 12 months or so. A 17 per cent. rise in fuel duty-that makes it six rises over just two years-is massively over inflation and hugely damaging.
	The Bill also includes higher duty on Scotch, which will do precisely nothing to tackle the issue of problem drinking and antisocial behaviour that follows, but will, of course, have a huge impact on the manufacturers and distillers. The Bill also freezes tax allowances, representing a real-terms cut in take-home pay for real people and taking more spending power out of local economies. It takes no recognition of the fact that for many people the real inflation rate is about 50 per cent. higher than the published rate used by the Government. With tax allowance thresholds frozen, that is a double whammy when it comes to spending power and inflation.
	The Bill is linked to the Government's fiscal responsibility plan, which, at its heart, is simply for deep and savage cuts-cuts deeper and tougher than even under Baroness Thatcher. It is worth reminding ourselves that the Bill is the starter to many of the cuts to come, which will include real-terms cuts to budgets this year, but without a comprehensive spending review to tell us where they will come from, and £57 billion out of the economy in 2013-14. For the avoidance of doubt-people should remember this-that is nearly £20 billion in tax rises and nearly £40 billion in service cuts, which represents nearly 3 per cent. of gross domestic product, assuming that the Government's forecast of 3.25 per cent. growth in four of the next five years is remotely achievable.
	I do not believe that this is a Finance Bill for growth, and I am not at all convinced that the Government's plan for fiscal consolidation has any credibility. As the right hon. Member for Wokingham said, there is no time to go through the Bill in any considerable detail, but it is worth highlighting one or two of the clauses. The changes in clause 1 to rates and thresholds will mean a real-terms tax rise and a real-terms cut in take-home pay. Clause 3 and the changes on small profits rates and fractions will have an impact on small businesses. I happen to welcome clause 6 on the relief for first-time buyers and the increase of the threshold to £250,000 for first-time buyers. However, a first-time buyer still needs to get a mortgage, and even if they can only get 80 per cent., they will still need to find £50,000 in cash to buy a £250,000 home. There cannot be very many people in the Minister's part of east London who have a spare £50,000 in their pockets for a deposit for a house. I suspect that even those on the Tory Front Bench might struggle to find that kind of loose change, so although I welcome the move, it is slightly surreal.

Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Gentleman has just talked about the amount that individual first-time buyers might need to put down to obtain a mortgage from a bank or building society. However, I hope he will accept that part of the problem in this country was that we were giving people too much money to buy houses with. In some cases Northern Rock was giving people 125 per cent. of the capital value. That surely led to some of the problems. Is there a figure that the hon. Gentleman believes it would be right for people to put down as a meaningful deposit on a mortgage?

Stewart Hosie: I would not want to set the business model for any bank or building society. If there was a particularly wealthy individual to whom it was quite safe to lend 100 per cent., it would be quite safe to do so. For others, the old rule of three or three-and-a-half times one salary, or two or two-and-a-half times a joint salary seems to make perfect sense. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we cannot go back to lending at five times joint salary based on future pension provision; that was an act of absolute madness. But as his right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham said in a debate a few weeks ago, if we need to invoke counter-cyclical measures from time to time when we begin to grow out of the recession, then perhaps we need to look again at some of the rules and restrictions.
	With clause 12-this bears repetition-we are seeing six fuel duty rises in just over two years. With record prices at the pump and the barrel price having gone up by, I think, $30 in a year, that could be catastrophic for the haulage sector, for families and for those who need to drive to work, and the measure is, of course, inflationary in its own right.

Charles Walker: I would like to raise my concerns in support of the hon. Gentleman's speech. With the price at about $80 a barrel, petrol is now more expensive at the pump than it was last year, when the price was $150 a barrel.

Stewart Hosie: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. As we have seen those rises in the barrel price-something like $2 in the past month, $10 in the past six months and $30 in the past year-we have seen a corresponding rise in the price at the pump. This issue is within the Government's control: they get the duty, but they also get a VAT windfall when the price at the pump goes up. In addition, as the barrel price rises, they get more North sea corporation tax, from the normal corporation tax and the ring-fenced regime. There are therefore windfalls for the Government from VAT, their own duty rises and North sea corporation tax, which is why the fuel duty regulator-or the Conservatives' version of a fair fuel stabiliser, or whatever some of the sensible Members on the Labour Benches called the measure-is exactly the right thing to introduce. Should the Conservatives win the next election, I hope they can be held to their promise to introduce their version of the fuel duty regulator quickly, to smooth out spikes in prices at the pump.

John Redwood: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but can he confirm that while tax is now two thirds of the pump price-the Government's imposition is a big reason why the price has gone up so much-the huge devaluation of the pound also means that the sterling price of oil has gone up far more than the dollar price?

Stewart Hosie: The right hon. Gentleman is right about the impact of currency fluctuations. He is right that duty and tax amount to approximately two thirds of the price of a litre, but the real killer is in wholesale diesel. Before tax, our diesel is among the cheapest in Europe; after tax, it is possibly the most expensive. From my point of view, as a Scot in an oil-rich nation, I find that quite abhorrent, especially when people are struggling to make ends meet and when we are seeing six rises-a 17 per cent. hike-in fuel duty over two years.
	Schedule 1 deals with the levy on bankers' bonuses. The Minister said, as the Chancellor has previously, that it had brought in £2 billion, but the bankers do not pay the tax: the banks pay it. If there is £2 billion in the Treasury coffers, there is £2 billion less to lend to real people in the real world. As for scrutiny of these proposals, schedule 1 is 21 pages long, and we could easily have a two-day debate on that schedule alone to ensure that there were no loopholes in it. Instead, we are going to skip over it in the next hour-and-a-half.
	This Bill is not a plan for recovery or growth; it is not even part of the package of proper fiscal consolidation. It is merely a harbinger of the deep and savage cuts to come. The Prime Minister said today, "We cannot cut our way to recovery, but we could cut our way to double-dip recession." That was hyperbole-delivered in the style of practised statistics oratory-but given the real-terms cuts now proposed, and the £57 billion that will come out of the economy in a single year a couple of years hence, why are those on the Treasury Bench not listening to him? Why do they think that the cuts proposed in the Bill and in their other measures will lead to anything other than a return to recession?

William Cash: We have had an object lesson today in the problems relating to the necessity for radical parliamentary reform. We all know that during the American revolution, it was a case of "No taxation without representation". Tonight, with no one at all on the Labour Back Benches, we have a situation of plenty of taxation but no representation, and I am extremely worried about the taxation proposals before us, for reasons that I have already identified. I am not being critical of those on my own Front Bench when I say that I am deeply worried that this Finance Bill is somewhat unprecedented-to my mind, at any rate, but I have been here for 26 years. To my knowledge, we have never been through this procedure before. There have been proposals that have gone through rather rapidly in the wash-up stages, but I have never before witnessed what we have seen today.
	The most important thing is to tell the British people the truth about the economy in the context of the public expenditure commitments, the cuts that will be required and the taxation that will be needed, which will supposedly be derived from the provisions in the Bill and other legislative measures, the effect of which the Government claim will balance off the deficit and reduce the debt.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) pointed out that the most important thing is to regenerate the economy, and that in order to do so we must take an enterprise approach to manufacturing as well as to the service industries and to small businesses, to give them a chance to get up off their knees and to get the economy going again. I cannot see anything in the Bill-apart from one or two measures that our Front Benchers have identified-that would assist the small business community.
	The national insurance issue is not even in the Bill, yet we know that it will cause immense damage to small and medium-sized businesses and to the people of this country at large, as hundreds of commentators have already said. I understand why it is not in the Bill, but its omission will have an impact on the Bill because there will be a greater requirement to raise more revenue as a result of what the Bill does contain. The real problem is that not a single penny-not one farthing-of public expenditure to pay for public services comes from anything other than private enterprise.
	We all understand that public services are important and essential in their own way-no one on the Opposition side is advocating the abolition of public services; we are just asking for a proper and efficient public service sector-and the pensions that go with the sector are also important. As the CBI has commented over the last few days, public sector pensions are out of control.
	The right hon. Member for Wokingham, my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newmark) and myself call ourselves-or at least I call us-the Three Musketeers, as we have hammered away on the subject of the net debt for the best part of nearly two years. The reality is that the true debt this country carries has a huge significance for the amount of money that needs to be raised by taxation to fill the gap-and the amount of tax raised is woefully inadequate. According to the Office for National Statistics, it is in the order of £3 trillion. I received a letter from Sir Michael Stoner the other day, confirming my figures, as I had raised with him certain matters relating to this issue, and the House of Commons Library also confirmed them.
	The figures vary between about £2.65 trillion and £3.21 trillion, but that is the minimum, as it gets worse if we add in the hidden costs of public sector pensions, Network Rail, private finance initiatives and nuclear decommissioning, on which an announcement has recently been made-and it is pretty horrendous. These amounts can be aggregated with the amount of debt to which the Government admit. Then there is the business of whether we include or exclude the financial sector interventions. If we include them, the situation becomes dramatically worse.

John Redwood: Does my hon. Friend, like me, wonder who the Government think they are fooling? The markets are already making this Government pay a lot more to borrow than the German Government do, because they know that this Government have borrowed an awful lot more than the German Government have.

William Cash: Indeed, that is completely true. I do not claim to be an expert economist by any means, but I am certainly trying to be analytical about the figures that I can see. I sometimes wonder whether the economists are quite as good as they are cracked up to be, because they quite frequently seem to get these things wrong. I acknowledge my right hon. Friend's point in relation to the veracity that can be attributed to the figures that we are given. As we saw only yesterday, in Greece there is a massive shortfall-

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must now focus his remarks on the Finance Bill that is currently before the House and on the measures contained in that Bill.

William Cash: I entirely understand and accept the point you make, Madam Deputy Speaker. I also have to say that I am talking very realistically and in a practical way about the fact that the Finance Bill simply does not fill the gap created by the massive debt that has been accumulated. If the truth is not being told about the true level of the debt, it affects the Finance Bill and every provision in it. I regard this Second Reading as a kind of massive omnibus stand part discussion. This is the only opportunity to debate the issue, if I may say so, given that every single clause coming to its Committee stage will not be subjected to the clause stand part debates that normally take place with a Finance Bill. In addition, no amendments have been tabled-or, at least, none has been selected-from anyone other than the Government. The Committee stage will not take long, for the simple reason that there is no real opportunity to look at the context in which this massive deficit and massive gap in public expenditure can be filled.
	There is another real problem here. If we look for a second at the level of unemployment that needs to be paid for, we see that the figures we have been given are themselves unrealistic.
	I believe that, according to the economic indicators in a House of Commons research paper, the International Labour Organisation has said that 2.6 million people are unemployed, but there are about 1,600,000 job claimants. Given the effective unemployment level that results if those figures are added together, and given all the revenue that must be raised, the Bill will have to fund the payment of 4.1 million people.
	As I said earlier, not one penny of public expenditure will come from any source other than private enterprise unless we simply go to the printing presses and print the money off. Not a single penny to pay for the public services that people need-and we advocate that, but on a rational basis-will come from any other source. If a Government do not get growth and enterprise right, which means putting the cart and the horse in the right order, they will not be able to provide for public expenditure. That is the one thing that this Government-in fact, all Labour Governments-totally fail to understand.

John Redwood: You run out of money.

William Cash: Indeed: you just run out of money. I strongly believe, given the inadequacy of this Bill, that the Government are not merely gazing into a black hole but leading us into it. We are beyond looking over the precipice, we are actually in the black hole, and never in the history of British financial affairs and taxation has a situation been so dire.

Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend could describe the situation even more clearly. The Government believe in continuing to fund the public sector-that is their policy-but are destroying the private manufacturing commercial sector that could fill in that black hole by funding public services.

William Cash: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who is leaving the House at the election, for continually and rightly emphasising that point. In the last two years the extent of the public sector has increased by 200,000, and that is another burden that the Bill will not be able to fund. There is a massive problem, and the Government are making it worse.
	Other Members have mentioned fuel costs. Farmers in my constituency have told me that the costs of fuel to them and to the rural community are huge, and I entirely agree with them. Hauliers, and others involved in road transport, are having to pay much more because of increases in fuel prices, as are ordinary road users. There are so many increasing costs.
	As the Bill makes clear, there is also a problem of over-regulation. I have already quoted from page 69 of the Bill and the proposed new section 213J to the Finance Act 2004, which deals with the appropriate pension increase, so I shall not do so again. I will, however, refer to the provision relating to what is described as
	"The appropriate lump sum increase",
	because I think it would be unfair not to make the House aware of it.
	I am sure that these provisions will not be understood by anyone except a very small elite-and, of course, the expensive accountants and lawyers who will be wheeled in to work it all out at enormous expense. The effect of over-regulation on those who are afflicted by it is in itself a disincentive that lessens our ability to run an efficient economy. People can spend all their time dealing with this. That applies to farmers dealing with the over-regulation of their affairs and with their tax problems, and to other small businesses. How are pensioners supposed to cope with this kind of thing, even if they are relatively well off? It is absurd to have legislation of this complexity.
	The definition of the "appropriate lump sum increase" is
	"(ACLS × CALSARF) - (UOLS × OALSARF)".
	That is just the defined benefits arrangement in respect of the so-called "appropriate lump sum increase". That has to be weighed up with the "appropriate pension increase". which I cited earlier in an intervention. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham mentioned allowances, about which new section 212J(1) says
	"C or P"-
	whoever they may be-
	"has a relevant excess of allowances in relation to the relevant trade if-
	RTWDV > BSV"
	That is all it says.
	Subsection (2) says:
	"Section 212K defines RTWDV and section 212L defines BSV."
	Honestly, this is absolutely ridiculous. This is the kind of legislation that we are being asked to passed. We are only on the Bill's Second Reading; we are not going to be able to examine things in Committee; and this is pure, unadulterated absurdity.

John Redwood: I wonder whether my hon. Friend will be able to catch the eye of the Exchequer Secretary, because I am sure that she would love to intervene to explain this.

William Cash: I do not want to embarrass the Exchequer Secretary. I am sure that she does not have the foggiest idea what I am talking about. I find that slightly alarming, given that we are about to have a general election and all the birds have flown-there is not a single person standing or sitting behind her. They have all flown back to their constituencies and landed the British people with this nonsense, which we are debating.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I was going to explain to the hon. Gentleman in my wind-up that these are formulae to value the defined benefit, and I assure him that they are understood by the pensions industry-the people who will have to use them. The industry has been consulted on them extensively.

William Cash: Part of the trouble is that the ordinary man in the street-the kind of person whom we meet during a constituency campaign when we wander around-is not from the pensions industry; I am talking about real people, who would not understand this any more than I suspect would any of the hon. Members who ought to be here in serried ranks behind the Exchequer Secretary but who have all flown off to their constituencies because they find it so embarrassing to listen to this kind of attack.

Mark Hoban: The Exchequer Secretary said that these formulae related to pensions, but of course the formula that my hon. Friend read out related to capital allowances.

William Cash: It did indeed, and I am so glad that my hon. Friend made that point. I was correctly referring to the formulae as relating to allowances, because the matter arose out of a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham, who always understands these things or at any rate does his best to do so.

Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend rather quickly passed over the problems of rural communities and farming. I believe that he was referring, to an extent, to the increase in hydrocarbon taxes. Is he aware that in many rural communities there is little or no public transport and so people, in many cases those on low wages, including pensioners, cannot lead a reasonable standard of life if they do not use a car? Is he also aware that the cost of such usage is being dramatically increased through taxation year on year? Does he agree that this is a very serious matter?

William Cash: I certainly agree with that. I mentioned the unhelpful and damaging increase in road tax and fuel tax for rural people in my constituency, as well as the fact that the number of buses is being cut back-I have just presented a petition to Parliament on that very subject-for all the reasons that my hon. Friend, who perhaps ought to be right honourable, has just mentioned.
	In the last hour, I have just received an answer from the Exchequer Secretary, who is sitting in front of us. I received a holding answer on 16 March and the question was answered on 7 April, so I have had to wait a bit of time for it.

Patrick Cormack: Was it worth it?

William Cash: My hon. Friend asks whether it was worth it, and we shall soon find out. I want to ask the Minister to give me a proper answer to the question that I put. My question was:
	"To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, what changes in levels of (a) taxation"-
	in the Finance Bill-
	"and (b) public expenditure will be required to finance the requirement to repay loans made from the public purse to banks, as referred to in the Financial Services Authority's publication Financial Risk Outlook of 10 March 2010."
	It will be noted that I tabled my question soon after the FSA produced its financial risk outlook. I had to wait the best part of a month to get the answer, but the fact is that the FSA report said that it was inevitable that a significant proportion of the money that would be required to finance the repayment of loans was going to have to come from the taxpayer. The figures are horrendous. That is yet another element of the gap that exists between the Government's Finance Bill and the ability to pay for the mistakes and problems that have been accumulating.
	What answer did I get from the Exchequer Secretary? She might or might not know what the answer is-she might not have even seen it, I do not know-

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Of course I have seen it.

William Cash: She says that of course she has seen it, but in that case she should have improved it. The answer that I have just received is as bland as this:
	"The Financial Risk Outlook discusses liquidity and funding support provided to eligible institutions. Responsibility for repayment of such support lies with the eligible institution itself."
	That is not what the financial risk outlook says. It is appalling that I should get an answer at this late hour, just before the debate on the Finance Bill. It was only by chance that I happened to be passing the letter board as I went out of this debate and I received an answer on the subject of the monumental amount of taxpayer burden. It arises out of the monumental and wanton increase in debt that itself does not even touch on the amount of net debt, which gets up to as much as £3.1 trillion if the Office for National Statistics is to be believed-I repeat that "if". I have much more faith in the ONS than I used to have, and I hope that it and the new UK Statistics Authority will develop into something akin to the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office and establish a reputation, as has been suggested by Sir Michael Scholar's strictures on the Government in the past few days, which I must say I applaud, However, I discovered something from the ONS the other day that deeply concerns me and I refer, just this once, to a subject with which some people might associate me: the ONS statistical base is agreed by EUROSTAT and that is a warning to us all. It was EUROSTAT's statistical assumptions that led to the ability of certain accountants, lawyers and bankers to advise the Greeks to enter into arrangements that have led to the crisis there. In other words, the EUROSTAT arrangements look as though they did not enable true figures to be provided, which enabled the Greeks to get away with it. That is where this Government are heading.

Charles Walker: Thank you for calling me to speak in this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am surrounded by four excellent gentlemen: my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), two knights of the shires-my hon. Friends the Members for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) and for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton)-and my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). I am sure that if he pulls his finger out in the next few years, he, too, will be a knight of the shire or even a right hon. Gentleman.
	This has been an excellent debate. I am not taken to acts of naked partisanship in the run-up to a general election, and I shall resist that temptation for at least the next 30 seconds. I have read the Finance Bill from cover to cover and it is very grim reading. It is a very concerning document. Its 167 pages are a metaphor for this Government's failing over the past 13 years. This is what we are left with: impenetrable clauses talking about figures and numbers that nobody could possibly understand unless they were working in a bank inventing impossible figures and numbers that would eventually bankrupt this country. It is not a document for growth: it is a document for further contraction in our economy.
	We, in this place, have every right to be hugely concerned about this document, but the issue is not whether we are concerned: it is whether our constituents are concerned, and they should be. In this document, we have yet more hidden taxes-hidden taxes on middle-class families, hidden taxes on working-class families, frozen allowances and higher duties. Those will all damage people's quality of life. This is going to be a very short speech, as we prepare for the general election. The only people who are doing well out of this document are the people who publish "Tolley's Tax Guide", which has trebled in size over the past 13 years. If we have much more of this, it will treble again in just the weeks ahead.

William Cash: Earlier in the debate, when my hon. Friend was not here, I ventured to suggest that we should consider a flat-rate tax. This legislation is so complicated and absurd that we have to find a way of reducing it. The rest of it is over-complicated for the people out there in our constituencies, and it is simply a milch cow for the accountancy and legal professions.

Charles Walker: I agree. It is absolutely impossible, even for well-educated people who think they might have an understanding of these things, to penetrate the complexity of this document. As we speak, accountants and advisers around the country are popping champagne corks because they are the only ones who will benefit from this document.
	I shall not try your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you will want me to talk about specific clauses, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham has pointed out, there are so many clauses that it is impossible to do justice to even one of them, let alone all of them, in this truncated debate. I shall conclude by saying that we have had the boom and that this document represents the bust. It is a depressing and frightening 167 pages, and I am sure that the bulk of it will be rejected by my constituents, because it certainly is not an offer that they will feel able to sign up to.

Nicholas Winterton: I am happy to put this question to my hon. Friend, but if he is unable to answer it, I intend to try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to ask a single question of those on the Treasury Bench. Is my hon. Friend worried that the Budget does very little to reduce the Budget deficit? Unless we reduce our indebtedness in this country, the money markets are going to lose confidence in our ability to take sensible steps to do that. If they lose that confidence, we will lose our triple A credit status, which will immediately lead to increased taxation, increased interest rates and, I believe, increased unemployment. Is my hon. Friend, who is a young and virile Member of this House and who will go a long way in his parliamentary career, able to answer that question, or will I have to put it to those on the Treasury Bench in a speech, short though it will be?

Charles Walker: This must not turn into a love-in, as we have serious matters before us, but I shall miss my hon. Friend greatly in the next Parliament.
	The tragedy of the past 13 years is that all our constituents are left having to carry an enormous of burden of debt. The Government have no money: they spend our money on our behalf, and they borrow money on our behalf. Our hard-working constituents are left with the millstone of this Government's debt around their necks. That is a disgraceful legacy, and one that the Government should be ashamed of.

Nicholas Winterton: I shall be brief, but I want to put a question to the two Ministers on the Treasury Bench.

John Redwood: Where are the others?

Nicholas Winterton: I am amazed that there is not a single Labour Back Bencher in the Chamber for the Second Reading of a very important Finance Bill.
	This country is burdened with the greatest debt in its history. I am a long-serving Member of this House, and I come from a business background. In my view, the budget deficit is unsustainable. The Budget contains very few measures that will reduce it in a meaningful way that will regain the confidence of the financial markets.
	If the money and bond markets lose confidence in this country and downgrade our triple A credit status, what will the Government do? Would that not mean that they would have to pay a great deal more for the money that they are continuing to borrow, and would that not lead immediately to emergency tax rises, rising inflation and the inevitable increase in unemployment that would cost a great deal of money?
	This is a very truncated Second Reading debate, and it is most unsatisfactory to deal with a Finance Bill in only three hours. I am about to leave the House, but I am deeply concerned about the future of the country, as are most of my constituents in Macclesfield. My area has a lot of manufacturing industry, including high-technology centres and pharmaceutical development and production. I am concerned for the future of our economic growth and our economy.

William Cash: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. My constituency is close to his, and I share his concern. He has led on the question of manufacturing for a great many years, through his all-party group and in other ways. Manufacturing in Staffordshire has fallen by 18 per cent. in the last three years. That is what he is talking about, and it is what worries us so much.

Nicholas Winterton: I do not think that I need respond to my hon. Friend, who has made the point very clearly. I agree with everything that he said.
	I believe that we are owed a response, because so many serious economists, as well as commentators on the economy of this country and on Government policy, are deeply concerned. We do not want to worsen the recession that we have had, but neither do we want to fall back into it. We must take serious steps to reduce the debt that this country has incurred.
	We cannot go on living on other people's money. We have got to produce money to reduce our debt, and the budget deficit that, sadly, has been built up by this Labour Government. Through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I make a plea for those on the Treasury Bench to make a proper and constructive response to what I believe is a very serious question. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) said, I came into this House championing manufacturing industry. I go out doing the same because, as I have said before, it is the only source of sustainable non-inflationary economic growth. It can drag this country out of the dire problems that it faces at this time. Please let the people of this country-and me, as I have raised the question-have a sensible and proper response in the wind-up speech.

David Gauke: It is a great pleasure to wind up this relatively brief Second Reading debate on behalf of the Opposition. I thank Members for their contributions.
	The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) spoke for the Liberal Democrats, standing in for his colleagues. He made the fair point that only limited time was available for the debate, although if more time had been allowed I do not know whether we would have heard more contributions from his parliamentary colleagues; perhaps not. It was his final speech in the House, and he must be one of the youngest Members to retire after 23 years. On behalf of the whole House, I wish him, and in particular his eldest son, well in the future.
	I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) for an excellent speech. He highlighted the need for professional advice and input for our deliberations on these highly technical matters. There have been only two working days since the publication of the Bill, so we have not had the opportunity to receive professional input as we would normally do.
	The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Stewart Hosie) raised the issue of fuel duty, and made a persuasive case for our fair fuel stabiliser policy, on which we are consulting. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) argued that nothing in the Bill would assist small businesses, and that the real debt figure is considerably higher than the Government would admit to-a point that was also made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham, and has been made in the past by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newmark). I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone described them as the Three Musketeers.
	No Second Reading debate on any subject is complete without a contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker)-or perhaps I should call him my hon. and virile Friend, to use the terminology of our hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton). My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne persuasively made the case that it was not possible to scrutinise the Bill properly in the time available.
	Finally, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield. I know there is a convention in the House that Members are not supposed to make speeches or interventions before they make their maiden speech. I am grateful that no such convention applies to Members after they have made their valedictory speech. I had the great pleasure of winding up after my hon. Friend's valedictory speech during the Budget debate, and it was an equally great pleasure to hear him address the Chamber again this evening.
	This is, we hope, this Government's final Finance Bill. Over the past 13 years our taxation system has developed a reputation for complexity and unpredictability. It has acquired a reputation for stealth taxes and the use of tax policy as a means to lay political traps for opponents rather than as the fairest and most efficient way of raising revenue. The Bill contains elements of all those attributes.
	The Bill could have taken the minimalist approach and focused only on matters that needed to be addressed urgently. The Chartered Institute of Taxation made that point in a hurried but none the less professional submission, saying that
	"the challenge to the Government is, quite simply, why any clauses more than those necessary to provide for the continuation of income tax and setting of duty rates should be passed."
	It makes the point that a number of technical or practical problems might well be detected, given the limited time available to consider the Bill.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) highlighted several aspects of the Bill about which there could be difficulty. For example, clause 24 and its related schedule, which relate to pensions, are particularly complex. Clauses 31 to 33, which relate to charities, also contain numerous complexities, and the Chartered Institute of Taxation states:
	"as far as we are aware the detail of these proposals has not been consulted on."
	My hon. Friend also talked about clause 36, which relates to penalties in respect of offshore income, and might affect the nationals of countries with which we do not have tax information exchange agreements. He also highlighted the position of the Gurkhas who have settled here, and raised the prospect of Joanna Lumley turning her attentions to Treasury Ministers; they may or may not find that an appealing thought.
	Clause 56 deals with stamp duty land tax and partnerships, and the Chartered Institute of Taxation says:
	"the clause as drafted will catch many transactions carried out for commercial reasons."
	Clause 57 addresses the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes, and the institute says:
	"we still have concerns about the breadth of the legislation."
	It makes the point that given that implementation will not take place until autumn,
	"it seems bizarre to rush it through in the first Finance Act".
	The institute also raised concerns about clause 58, but we have succeeded in arguing that that should be removed from the Bill.
	In many ways, the Bill introduces greater complexity, yet it is clearly not receiving the scrutiny that such measures normally receive. The situation helpfully supports an argument that Conservative Members have been making for some time: we need to do much more to improve scrutiny. We argue that it is necessary to publish draft legislation at the time of the pre-Budget report-in advance of the publication of the Finance Bill-to allow for proper scrutiny, including pre-legislative scrutiny by a parliamentary Committee. We would also establish an office of tax simplification that could advocate reforms to our tax law to make it less complex.
	We will let these clauses through. Tackling avoidance is a perfectly reasonable intention-we have no difficulty with it-but we make a commitment that we will listen to representations made by professional bodies on the technical and practical implications of the Bill, and if appropriate return to those matters. I hope that the Exchequer Secretary will make a similar commitment. Many aspects of the Bill have not received the necessary pre-legislative scrutiny, and the Bill is clearly not getting the legislative scrutiny that one would expect, so there is a fair chance that it will contain errors that would have been picked up under the normal process. I do not believe for a moment that the normal process is sufficient in itself, but I hope that the hon. Lady will make a commitment that if her Government are re-elected, and if there are representations that deserve a proper response in a second Finance Bill this year, they will, if necessary, make revisions. We are certainly prepared to consult on these technical matters and to consider them further.
	I have referred to the complexity and unpredictability in the tax system, but let me touch on stealth taxes. I am delighted that we will manage to remove three of those taxes from the Bill. The first is the increase in duty on cider: an increase 10 per cent. above inflation that does not focus on super-strength cider-a focus for which we have long argued-was a regrettable move and we are pleased that we have forced the Government to drop it from the Bill, or at least amend the provision. There will be a clear choice at the general election on whether it is implemented.
	We have raised concerns about the policy on furnished holiday lettings ever since it was announced in last year's Budget. The proposed change in taxation treatment could affect 45,000 jobs and 60,000 businesses, and have a serious impact on various rural and seaside areas.

Lembit �pik: I apologise for not having been here for the entire debate. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that the change in holiday lettings taxation could not only seriously disrupt the potentially lucrative holiday lettings sector in areas where, for example, farmers are seeking to diversify, but force that business abroad? That would be utterly counter-productive, not only for the British economy but for British tourism.

David Gauke: Clearly, there could be a serious impact on British tourism, which would be regrettable. That is why we proposed reforms that would be revenue-neutral, and we want to consult further to protect revenue and ensure that individual parts of the country are not heavily affected by the Government's proposal, which would damage tourism and wider communities. We are pleased to have got that out of the Bill.

John Redwood: I congratulate my hon. Friends on getting those unpleasant taxes out of the Bill. Will my hon. Friend confirm that, as this is a Finance Bill, the Government, who have a majority in this place, can still do what they like, because the other place cannot stop the Bill?

David Gauke: Of course, the other place does not have a view on the Bill. It is a matter of timing, and I am pleased that those of my hon. Friends who were engaged in negotiations on the wash-up were able to achieve three measures that prevented tax rises. Of course, they are only temporary measures. Stopping them properly is not in our hands or the Government's; it is in the hands of the British people.
	The third tax I should mention is the landline duty-a levy that the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee described as
	both regressive and poorly targeted. It would have a much greater impact on the less well-off who will pay for an enhanced service which only a minority will enjoy.
	There is a clear choice at the general election. We could continue with the present Government and see further tax rises-not just the three that I have mentioned, but the substantial increases in national insurance contributions, which are opposed overwhelmingly by businesses. We could continue with the present Government, who regard parliamentary scrutiny as nothing more than an inconvenience where tax law is concerned, or we could change to our policy of pre-legislative and parliamentary scrutiny. We could continue with a Government who believe in heaping yet more complexity on to our tax system, or change to a Conservative Government who are committed to simplifying the tax system.
	We will not oppose Second Reading of the Bill. We have mitigated some of its worst effects, but it symbolises the present Government's approach, being about higher taxes, greater complexity and lack of scrutiny. That approach has run its course. It is time for a change.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: It is a pleasure to close the Second Reading debate on this year's Finance Bill. I thank all hon. Members who contributed, some of whom did so at great length and some of whom did so very briefly. The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) gave a valedictory speech; I guess that explains why most of his remarks were not actually directed at the Bill, but they were interesting none the less. We also heard contributions from the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban), the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), the hon. Members for Dundee, East (Stewart Hosie) and for Stone (Mr. Cash), and the virile Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker)-that is how he will go down. We also heard from the hon. Members for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) and for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke). A number of points have been raised, and I will try to pick up as many of them as I can in my speech.

Evan Harris: I am sorry that I could not be here earlier, but I want to raise an issue about one of the Bill's provisions, given that it seems that there will not be a Committee stage. My point relates to clause 59, which is about the opening of postal packages. The Minister might have a chance to get a note on the subject. Why is the safeguard of allowing the addressee to be present, or indeed to be notified, being removed by an amendment to section 106 of the Postal Services Act 2000, which deals with contraband? Article 8 of the European convention on human rights is engaged by the opening of private mail. I would be grateful if she clarified the justification for removing that important safeguard, as that is not in the explanatory notes.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman was not here for, and unable to contribute to, the Second Reading debate. I will try to get the exact answer to his question, but the customs powers relate to the examination of goods imported in postal packets. Customs does not have powers to open or read correspondence. We are trying to tackle organised tobacco smuggling through the post-a point that was made in an intervention on the Financial Secretary when we were talking about tobacco rates and the incidence of smuggling.

Evan Harris: That is very helpful, but I remind the Minister that under section 106 of the 2000 Act-I raise the point because it has been covered in the media-the threshold is that a postal operator may detain any postal packet that they suspect contains relevant goods and forward it to Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. HMRC can then open whatever it receives. As it is, there is no reasonableness test. The only safeguard is that the person to whom the packet is addressed ought to be there, or at least needs to be notified. That is being stripped away by clause 59 of the Bill. The threshold is not HMRC suspecting anything; it is a postal operator suspecting. There is a low threshold, and the Bill removes one of the safeguards, or perhaps the only safeguard.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I can only repeat that we take tobacco smuggling very seriously, which is why an amendment is being made to clause 59. It is something that we wish to tackle. I shall try to get an answer to the hon. Gentleman's particular point, and if we do not get it by the end of the debate, I will undertake to write to him on the subject.
	I want to pick up a point that the hon. Member for Macclesfield made, because he made his speech deliberately to raise it. He took the view that the Finance Bill does little to reduce the deficit. I do not agree with him, because it delivers our key tax measures, which are at the heart of our plan to halve the deficit over four years. Although this is a limited Finance Bill, we have in it the 50p tax rate, the pensions tax relief, the freezing of the inheritance tax threshold and the bank payroll tax.
	The hon. Gentleman made a point about unemployment. I have to tell him that the actions that we took during the global financial crisis mean that we have not had the high levels of unemployment that there certainly were under the Conservative Government.
	Many hon. Members spoke about manufacturing, yet we are increasing the capital allowances and the annual allowance for small businesses. I understand that the Conservative proposal is to cut capital allowances, which many manufacturing organisations have been very unhappy about, because that would not help manufacturing.

David Gauke: On the subject of unemployment, what assessment has the Treasury made of the impact on employment caused by the increase in employers' national insurance contributions?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: The national insurance increase will not come in until 2011. The whole point is that we will sustain the recovery, so we are not putting that measure in place now. We believe that it would damage industry, if it were to happen now.

David Gauke: Is the Minister saying that unemployment in 2010 matters, but it does not matter in 2011? She must have an assessment of what effect those increases will have in 2011.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Of course I am not saying that unemployment does not matter in 2011. What I am saying is that if we took the Opposition's advice and started cutting things now and not supporting industry this year, we would see far higher unemployment. We believe that we have the balance and the timing right.

Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to the Minister for seeking to respond to my direct questions to the Treasury Bench. Will she not accept that one of the reasons that unemployment has not increased, as many feared, is because the Government have sustained the public sector, and a lot of unemployment has still occurred in the manufacturing and private sector? That the Government have sustained employment in the public sector is the reason why unemployment has not risen much higher.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I do not agree with that. The car scrappage scheme had nothing to do with the public sector, and it has sustained industry. The measures that we have taken have helped to keep unemployment down across the board.

Stewart Hosie: I am curious about this argument about manufacturing. Gross fixed capital formation is down-it has been bottom of the EU heap since 1997-and research and development spend has been lower than our major competitors since 1997. We lost a million manufacturing jobs since 1997 before the recession, and we had an £81 billion balance of trade deficit in goods last year. Which bit of it does Labour think that it has got right?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain why we still have the sixth largest manufacturing industry in the world. We are supporting manufacturing industry; we need to support manufacturing industry. In particular, we need to support the green industries and the new industries that are coming through, which we want the UK to be at the forefront of.

Stewart Hosie: I could not agree more. We should support the new industries. There was an announcement about the games industry, which is vitally important in Dundee, but there is nothing in the Finance Bill and nothing in the Budget for 2010-11. It is always jam tomorrow, is it not?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: That returns me to the point that this is deliberately a limited Finance Bill, because of the wash-up that we face. To those who claim that there has not been time to scrutinise the Bill, I say that it is deliberately limited, but around two thirds of the measures in it have been aired for comment and been consulted on formally and informally before their introduction here.

John Redwood: Will the Minister explain why not a single Labour Back Bencher has attended most of the debate? No single Labour Back Bencher has thought it worth speaking on this very wide-ranging Finance Bill.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I am sure that our Back Benchers can speak for themselves on why they were not here. They have certainly been involved in the Budget process, and I am sure that they have confidence in those on the Treasury Bench to put the Finance Bill forward.
	The right hon. Gentleman spoke a lot about the Bill's complexity. On the measures used by the World Bank, the UK compares favourably with other countries, and the World Bank ranks the UK first in the G7 for ease of paying taxes.
	Turning to the points made by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, we all know that we faced the deepest global recession in more than 60 years, and, as I said earlier, we have had to make difficult choices and take unprecedented action to support the economy, businesses and families. That support has worked. The economy has slowly returned to growth and the effects of the recession on households and businesses have been less severe than many feared-they have certainly been less severe than in previous recessions. However, uncertainties persist, and for that reason my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out in the Budget debate the action that we will need to take as we confront the challenges.
	It is right that we continue to provide targeted support for businesses. We have made huge strides, and, as I have said, we do not want to derail the recovery by withdrawing support from businesses too hastily.

William Cash: But one effective way of derailing the recovery would be gravely to underestimate the net debt and the deficit. If the amount of money that the Government raise has absolutely no prospect of filling the deficit target that they have set, how much worse will the situation be based on the true debt, which the Office for National Statistics and the Library's researchers have indicated, and which is causing so much concern among credit risk agencies and the bond markets?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I have had these exchanges with the hon. Gentleman before. We believe that we have set forth the right measures, and that we will be able to support the economy as it comes through to recovery and enables us to reach our target of halving the deficit over four years.
	I was talking about businesses, and the Finance Bill includes a number of measures to ensure that businesses continue to invest and grow, doubling both the support provided through the annual investment allowance and the lifetime limit on entrepreneurs' relief. The planned increase in corporation tax for small companies is being deferred further to support businesses through challenging times, and, as I have said, we also hope to support the low-carbon economy. We are halving company car tax for ultra-low-carbon cars, bringing in a zero rate for cars with no emissions and thereby helping to make the UK one of the best places in the world to build low-carbon vehicles.
	We want to reduce borrowing at a pace that does not impede the recovery or damage front-line services. Borrowing has increased as a result of the help that we have given, and we have always maintained that it must be brought down once the recovery is assured. We have been clear that, as the economy recovers, the Government will halve the level of borrowing, and we believe it right that those with the broadest shoulders take the greatest burden, so the top 1 per cent. of taxpayers alone will pay the additional 50 per cent. rate of income tax. Most people do not pay inheritance tax, and, even with the freeze in the allowance, only 4 per cent. of estates are expected to pay in 2014-15. The restriction on tax relief on pensions will affect only 2 per cent. of pension savers.
	The hon. Member for Fareham asked about the impact assessment changes to the administration costs. The original impact assessment, which was published at the pre-Budget report, was part of the industry consultation. As I have said, there was extensive consultation, in groups, seminars and by going out to talk to the industry, and the upward revision of the impact assessment costs reflects the evidence that stakeholders provided. However, we believe that the numbers in the final impact assessment are reasonable estimates, and we do not expect them to increase significantly.
	Many people have said that pensions tax relief is complicated, and the hon. Member for Stone read out a formula. The second formula that he read out is in schedule 5, and he asked me whether I understood it. Sadly, I am afraid that I probably did, because in my job before I became an MP I used to deal with capital allowances for businesses. However, the formula that we discussed in schedule 3-the pensions formula-is being dealt with and is understood by the pensions industry, and the pension schemes will value that benefit.
	We are taking a fair approach to halving the deficit, and many hon. Members-in particular, the hon. Members for Broxbourne and for Dundee, East-mentioned fuel duty. Questions were also raised about a regulator and stabiliser. There is an assumption, which the hon. Member for Dundee, East expressed, that the Government receive a tax windfall when oil prices are high. Although revenues from North sea taxes admittedly increase, that is offset by a number of factors, such as lower corporation tax receipts because high oil prices reduce company profits, higher payments on index-linked benefits because rising oil prices push up inflation and greater costs of servicing index-linked bonds. Although the VAT take from fuel increases when pump prices rise, that is offset by the fact that people who pay more for fuel tend to spend less on other goods and services, so we have not seen a VAT windfall at such times.
	A rise in fuel duty will play an important role in securing the public finances in the medium term, but we are sensitive to other pressures faced by families and businesses, which is why we are staging the increase in the next year.

Nicholas Winterton: Will the hon. Lady respond to the serious and growing problems of rural areas, such as the hill country to the east of Macclesfield, where there is no public transport? How are people expected to live and have a proper standard of life if they have to pay more for transport, their allowances are frozen and they are not getting any increase in their wages? How can they pay?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: We recognise the difficulties faced by people in rural areas who are dependent on the car. I say to the hon. Gentleman that fuel duty is still lower in real terms now than it was in 1999, and it is just one part of the cost of fuel. It is because we are sensitive to the pressures that people face that we are staging the increase.
	I wish to move on to cider. Several hon. Members have made much of saying that we had proposed a pernicious increase in cider tax and that the increase should have been imposed just on higher-strength ciders. People pray in aid small cider producers, but in clause 69, which will remain in the Bill, we change the definition of cider. Much of the difficulty that people have had with the problem ciders is that they do not have a very high apple juice content. That is why we are changing the definition, which will not affect rural producers.
	I wonder whether Members of all parties have seen the letters that I have received from those in the beer brewing industry, who have been complaining for a long time about the iniquity of the situation. In their view, with which we agree, there is an unfair difference between beer and cider duty.

Greg Hands: Is the Exchequer Secretary saying that those letters from the beer industry argue that duty should be raised on cider but left unchanged on beer? Surely the Government created the wider differential in the first place.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Certainly the letters that I have had from the beer industry, including small brewers, express the opinion that it is very unfair. Even with the 10 per cent. increase that we planned to introduce, the rate of duty on cider would still have been half that on beer. We were trying not to close the gap totally, but to bring the two closer together. The two largest companies produce more than 80 per cent. of cider, and under our proposed regulations the majority of cider makers-almost 400 of the smallest producers-would have been subject to special conditions and not affected. None the less, we have gone through a process of negotiation and consensus, and the measure will not be in the Bill, although when we are returned to Government we will bring it back.
	I believe that we have made the right choices through the duration of this global downturn. The Finance Bill continues the provision of help where it is needed most, and we are introducing measures in it to ensure that we can meet our commitment to halve the deficit over four years. I commend it to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Finance Bill

Considered in Committee

[Sir Alan Haselhurst  in the Chair]

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2
	  
	Charge and main rate for financial year 2010

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

David Gauke: Given the time, I shall be brief.
	Clause 2 relates to the main rate of corporation tax. I was rereading the Prime Minister's 1997 Budget speech when he highlighted the importance of the corporation tax rate, announced a reduction in that rate and highlighted the international comparisons. It might help the House to compare where we were in 1997 with where we are now. In 1997, our corporation tax rate was lower than the OECD average, but now it is higher; in 1997, our corporation tax rate was the 11th lowest, but now it is the 23rd lowest; we used to have the third lowest in the EU15, but now it is the sixth highest; and while the rest of the world has been cutting its corporation tax rates substantially, the UK has been caught up with and, in many cases, overtaken.
	Clause 2 does nothing about that situation. We have made it clear that we intend to lower the corporation tax rate by broadening the base and reforming complex allowances. That has the advantage of sending out a signal to the rest of the world and international investors that the UK is open for business, and by lowering the rate we will also be in a position to remove some of the complexities and anti-avoidance measures that may be taken as a consequence of the UK having a rate that is not as attractive as that of our competitors. The Government tend to quote comparisons with the G7, but beyond that many countries now have a lower corporation tax rate than the UK.
	The Exchequer Secretary said that some argue against those matters, and last week the Chief Secretary quoted General Electric's international tax counsel, Will Morris, on this. For the House's benefit, I thought it would be worth highlighting his comments at a recent Policy Exchange event on 22 March. He said that the Conservative's
	clearly stated commitment to manufacturing, and to streamlining, rather than abolishing, capital allowances, does actually lead me to believe that the proposed rate cut will send a positive message about investing in Britain.
	It is important to address one of the concerns that has grown up under this Government. We have become increasingly uncompetitive in this area, so we intend to reduce the mainstream corporation tax rate from 28 to 25 per cent. and the small profits rate from 22 to 20 per cent. We believe that that will be a step in the right direction; indeed, we have ambitions to reduce the rate further, and have engaged some of the country's leading tax experts. They continue to provide advice to the Government and Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, but we have asked them to develop proposals to reform our corporation tax regime to ensure that we have the best corporate tax environment in the G20. We should look beyond the G7; we should look at standards in the G20 as a whole, to enable us to bring our corporation tax rate down further. This Finance Bill could have been an opportunity to start some of those reforms and move towards a lower corporation tax rate, but it is an opportunity that has been spurned. However, we hope to have an opportunity in the months ahead to ensure that the UK once again has one of the most competitive corporation tax rates in the developed world.

Stephen Timms: I was rather hoping that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) might intervene in this debate on behalf of manufacturing and challenge those on his Front Bench, because the Engineering Employers Federation, on behalf of UK manufacturing, has described the proposal that the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke) has just outlined to us-albeit perhaps not in as much detail as it would have been interesting to hear from him-as a disaster. And so it would be, because the investment allowances that support manufacturing are crucial. It would be quite wrong to abolish them.

David Gauke: rose-

Stephen Timms: The hon. Gentleman also talked about streamlining, whatever that might mean. Perhaps he is about to illuminate us with regard to what he had in mind.

David Gauke: The Minister mentioned the EEF. Let me point out to him that the EEF has welcomed the discussions we have had with it about its proposals for a short-life asset regime. It has said that manufacturers will be encouraged to hear of our engagement in the matter, so the situation is not quite as the Minister portrays it.

Stephen Timms: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has been talking to the Engineering Employers Federation, although he should have talked to it a bit earlier and perhaps avoided the warranted criticism that his proposals have received.
	At 28 per cent., the UK's corporation tax rate is at its lowest level ever. As the hon. Gentleman recognised, it remains the lowest in the G7. In our view it is important that we should retain the competitive position that that relatively low rate of corporation tax gives us. I welcome the fact that the Opposition are supporting-or not opposing-clause 2, and I commend it to the Committee.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	 Clauses 3 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6
	  
	Relief for first-time buyers

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mark Hoban: I do not want to detain the Committee for too long on clause 6, as we have already expressed our pleasure at its inclusion in the Bill. It copies an idea that my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) announced in October 2007, although the difference is that the proposal in clause 6 is limited to two years. However, I would like to ask the Government about two points of detail that have been raised with us.
	First, as happens in many cases now, a first-time buyer might be helped out with the cost of a purchase by a parent or relative. That person might not have owned a home previously, but the provision applies if, as proposed new section 57AA(1)(d) of the Finance Act 2003 says,
	the purchaser, or (if more than one) each of the purchasers, is a first-time buyer who intends to occupy the residential property as the purchaser's only or main residence.
	If a relative helps someone to buy a property but will not be living there full time, does the purchaser of that property still qualify for the relief?
	The second point that has been raised with me relates to proposed new section 57AA(2)(a) of the 2003 Act, which says that first-time buyer means a person who
	has not previously been a purchaser in relation to a relevant acquisition of a major interest in land.
	My understanding is that someone over 18 living at home would, even if they were not the purchaser, be deemed for legal reasons to have a major interest in land, and that their consent might be required if the home were being remortgaged. How is that situation dealt with in proposed new subsection (2)(a)?

Stephen Timms: In answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question, the issue would be whether the person who had previously owned the property owned a stake in the property being acquired as a result of the arrangement that the hon. Gentleman has described. If the answer was no, and those whose names were on the deeds were first-time buyers, they would be eligible. If someone else who was not eligible had a share in the equity of the property, the concession would not apply.
	I did not entirely understand the hon. Gentleman's second question. I am not quite sure what he was asking about the relief. He appeared to be describing a situation in which an additional person in the property had not previously owned a property, and I do not think that the relief would be affected by that.

Mark Hoban: The Minister has clarified my first point about the situation in which a gift has been made to help someone to purchase a property: the relief could still be granted for that purchase when a gift had been made by, say, a relative to enable someone to purchase a house. My second point related to whether someone who was over 18 and, say, living in their parents' home would be deemed to have a major interest in that property. Would the provision in proposed new subsection (2)(a) prevent them from taking advantage of the relief when they subsequently bought a home of their own?

Stephen Timms: I think I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on that. If someone who had been living in their parents' home and who had not previously owned a property or contributed to buying one subsequently left their parents' home and bought a property for the first time, they would be eligible for this relief.
	 Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	 Clauses 7 and 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9
	  
	Rates of alcoholic liquor duties

Stephen Timms: I beg to move amendment 1, page 6, line 42, at end insert:
	(4A) In section 62(1A) (as amended by subsection (4))-
	(a) in paragraph (b), for £54.04 substitute £50.22, and
	(b) in paragraph (c), for £36.01 substitute £33.46..

Alan Haselhurst: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendments 2 and 3.

Stephen Timms: Clause 9 increases alcohol duty rates charged on beer, wine and spirits by 2 per cent. above inflation, and on cider by 10 per cent. above inflation, with effect from 29 March. Together with VAT, these increases are equivalent to 2p on a pint of beer, 5p on a litre of cider, 10p on a bottle of wine and 36p on a bottle of spirits. As the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury and I have explained, in order to ensure the swift passage of the Bill through the wash-up, I have tabled amendments 1, 2 and 3 to this clause. The amendments will reduce the rates of duty on cider from 30 June this year to a level consistent with a 2 per cent. above-inflation increase, in line with the increases for other alcoholic drinks.
	The amendments will cost the Exchequer up to £15 million a year, and will undermine our intention of bringing the rates of cider duty more into line with those for other alcoholic drinks. We will therefore legislate to confirm the originally planned increases in a second Finance Bill, just after the election.

Nicholas Winterton: I clearly declare an interest: I am a long-time supporter of the Campaign for Real Ale, and I was the chairman of CAMRA (Real Ale) Investments, a little company that CAMRA formed. Why, despite all the evidence that pubs are closing and brewers are finding it increasingly difficult to survive, are the Government further increasing the tax on beer, a traditional British drink that is already highly taxed? In doing so, they are phasing out pubs which is where responsible drinking takes place. I hope that those on my own Front Bench will hear my request that, in the next Budget, the new Government will not continue to increase the tax on beer, which is used as a milch cow to raise funds.

Stephen Timms: I am delighted that we have been joined on the Front Bench by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, who has a particular interest in the well-being and future of pubs and has done some very helpful work on that subject.
	I would take the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) back to his earlier intervention when he drew attention to the need to address the deficit. We are committed to halving it over four years and this is an important step towards achieving that. I am pleased that he has been able to make a further valedictory intervention and, along with everyone else, I want to wish him well for the future and express my appreciation for his contribution to the House over many years. Given that he has already made a point about the importance of addressing the deficit, I am sure he will recognise the importance of this measure, and I am pleased that his Front-Bench team has agreed not to resist this proposal.

Lembit �pik: The Minister will no doubt be aware that the cause of the closure of many pubs is not necessarily taxation, but the behaviour of the pubcos. One thing that his Government could do to reassure the pubs-

The Chairman: Order. I should say to the Committee that we have very little time left and this debate is supposed to be about the rates of duty on cider-and nothing else.

Stephen Timms: I commend the amendments and support the clause standing part of the Bill.

Greg Hands: You will recall, Sir Alan, that at this stage of the Finance Bill last year, I spoke for one hour and 17 minutes on an amendment dealing with alcohol taxation. I am afraid that I do not have the same amount of time available this evening. However, the Government's changes to alcohol rates deserve some scrutiny.
	We are delighted to see the Government forced to climb down on their massive across-the-board tax raid on cider drinkers, but it is clear that, without Conservative intervention, this would never have happened. It is equally clear that only the election of a Conservative Government will ensure that the tax on cider comes back down again. The Financial Secretary has already been quoted in the press as saying:
	No policy will change as a result of the negotiations.
	This is because, as he has laid out this evening, he intends to introduce a second Finance Bill after the election to ram the increase through against the protests from everyone-from the ordinary cider drinker to The Wurzels.

Paul Keetch: May I put on record the fact that it was the Liberal Democrats who established the cider caucus in this Parliament and that it is the Liberal Democrats who have been campaigning to ensure that tax on cider is not increased? The hon. Gentleman should not take this as only a Conservative victory; he should take it as a Conservative and Liberal Democrat victory.

Greg Hands: I am afraid to say that the hon. Gentleman was not there for the negotiations. I am going to mention the Liberal Democrat position on cider in recent years, because I am afraid that it has not been beneficial to the argument the hon. Gentleman is making this evening.
	I just mentioned The Wurzels, and a piece of breaking news is that The Wurzels have today issued a press release welcoming the Government climbdown. It states:
	Here in the West Country cider is close to our hearts and if we, through our music and association with cider, helped bring this campaign to a ciderhead, then I think we all deserve a pint.
	If they can wait until after 30 June, I can tell them that that pint will be rather cheaper, thanks to Conservative pressure yesterday evening. Similarly, the National Association of Cider Makers has rightly said that the increase
	has the potential to undermine what businesses both large and small have done and the great contribution they are making to the rural economy and communities they are part of.
	On a number of occasions, I have met the NACM and some of the many small craft cider makers it represents. Their businesses are threatened by the Government's actions. In the west country and beyond, they know how punitive a 10 per cent. duty increase will be.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Greg Hands: I am not giving way, as I have only two minutes.
	Those businesses will also be appalled that the Government, if they get the chance, are planning to undo the amendments before us today.
	Finally, let me say something about the Liberal Democrats' position. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne), their spokesman on Treasury matters, is not present to witness the Government's climbdown on cider duties. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) is not here either, but it was the hon. Member for Taunton who mentioned, during the debate on last year's Finance Bill, that he had tabled an amendment that would have frozen duty on spirits but left duties on cider unchanged. Attempting to justify the move, he said:
	Cider is not as widely drunk in my constituency as it once was.-[ Official Report, 12 May 2009; Vol. 492, c. 778.]
	That suggests to me that he is no great defender of the cider industry, although he is the Member of Parliament for Taunton. He subsequently tabled a further amendment to the Finance Bill which would have reduced taxes on beer but not, ultimately, those on cider. As we saw last year, the Liberal Democrats cannot claim to be friends of the cider industry.
	The Opposition disagree with the whole basis of the Government's approach. Rather than imposing a blanket increase on all types and strengths of cider, we would direct tax increases at the problem, which is caused by high-strength, mass-produced cider. We believe in taxing those 3-litre supermarket bottles of problem cider rather than taxing ordinary, responsible drinkers.
	Our approach is not specific to cider, however. We would apply the same approach to all alcohol duties. For example, we would also target super-strength beer. We believe in targeting problem drinks, not all drinkers. Meanwhile, the Government continue to make alcohol duties a blunter instrument than is necessary. Responsible drinkers are being punished, pubs continue to struggle, and the minority who cause trouble go unchecked.
	Today we have won a significant victory for common sense on cider, but it is a forced victory. The Government's message to cider drinkers could not be clearer. They have given way temporarily, but are pledged to reverse this amendment if Labour is returned to power. Their message is simply this: if you want a 10 per cent. increase in cider tax, vote Labour. If you want your tax reduced-
	 Three hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings, the debate was interrupted (Programme Order, this day).
	 The  Chair  put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83D), That the amendment be made.
	 Amendment 1  agreed to.
	 The Chair then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83D).
	 Amendments made: 2, page 7, line 32, leave out this section and insert
	subsections (2) to (4) and (5).
	Amendment 3, page 7, line 33, at end insert-
	'( ) The amendments made by subsection (4A) come into force on 30 June 2010.' .-(Mr. Timms.)
	 Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	 Clauses 10 to 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	 Clause 23 disagreed to.
	 Clauses 24 to 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	 Clause 58 disagreed to.
	 Clauses 59 to 64 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	 Clause 65 disagreed to.
	 Clauses 66 to 71 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 72
	  
	Interpretation

Amendment made: 7, page 36, leave out line 13.- (Mr. Timms.)
	 Clause 72, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	 Clause 73  ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	 Schedule 1  to  agreed to.
	 Schedule 2 disagreed to.
	 Schedules 3 to 20 agreed to.
	 Schedule 21 disagreed to.
	 Schedule 22 agreed to.
	 The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
	 Bill, as amended, reported.
	 Bill read the Third time and passed.

Digital Economy Bill [ Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir Alan Haselhurst  in the Chair]

Alan Haselhurst: I must say to the Committee that before I propose the Question that clause 1 stand part of the Bill, I must inform hon. Members that two manuscript amendments have been tabled by the Minister to clause 11. Copies of a supplementary amendment paper with the texts have been in the Vote Office for some time. The amendments are numbered 44 and 45. I have selected them and grouped them with the second group of amendments under clause 4, where the lead amendment is amendment 39.

Clause 1
	  
	General duties of OFCOM

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Stephen Timms: Sir Alan, I am not going to move that clause 1 stands part of the Bill. In-

The Chairman: Order. For the sake of rectitude, I should say to the right hon. Gentleman that he does not have to move this. The Question is on whether the clause stands part of the Bill, so we shall see what the debate brings on that matter.

Stephen Timms: I am grateful to you, Sir Alan. As I say, I am not going to move this.
	Clause 1 gives us a requirement in the Bill for Ofcom to promote investment in electronic communications networks and public service media content. That is an important measure, particularly given that there is wide agreement, including across the House, about the importance of promoting investment and of Ofcom facilitating the investment we need in next-generation broadband and in modern communications networks. Nevertheless, given the nature of this wash-up process and my wish to help other Members, I am not moving that the clause should stand part of the Bill and I am not seeking to persuade Members to support it.

Lembit �pik: I understand what the Minister is saying about the nature of the process. Is he aware that in Montgomeryshire, which has many not spots, there is a general nervousness that the Government have not sought to legislate to guarantee good access to fast broadband across the country? How does his action on this clause interrelate with my efforts to try to get Montgomeryshire on to the information superhighway?

Stephen Timms: The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. It is a matter of deep concern in rural areas across the country-in Scotland, where I have been recently, and in England and Wales too.
	The key steps that are being taken are, first, our commitment to universal service at 2 megabits per second-because many of the areas about which the hon. Gentleman is talking do not have any broadband at all at the moment-by 2012. Broadband Delivery UK is working on that at the moment. Secondly, we need the landline levy-sadly not now in the Finance Bill for this year, although it will be in the Finance Bill that we will introduce straight after the election-with a 50p a month levy on phone lines that will give us the funding to invest in next-generation broadband in rural areas across the country. There is wide agreement across the House about the importance of next-generation broadband being delivered in rural areas. There also needs to be a means to deliver it. That is what the landline levy will give us. There will be no means otherwise.

Lembit �pik: Am I therefore right to understand that the action that the Minister is taking on this clause does not represent a change of policy from the Government on guaranteeing 2 megabits per second to rural seats? Can I go back to Montgomeryshire and say that despite the fact that he will not press this clause, he will still give an absolute assurance that all the communities and homes in Montgomeryshire can expect 2 megabits per second broadband access were his Government to be re-elected, however rural or remote the settlement?

Stephen Timms: I can give the hon. Gentleman the reassurance that our universal service commitment stands.

Don Foster: The Minister tells us that he is sad that the broadband tax has been dropped and he said that it was being done to be helpful to the House. Will he explain why, given that there is a majority in this House and a majority in another place in favour of that tax, it has been dropped?

The Chairman: Order. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that that matter has nothing to do with the Bill or with the clause that we are discussing.

Stephen Timms: Thus warned, Sir Alan, I shall be cautious, other than to say that the hon. Gentleman knows well how these matters are determined.
	 Question put and negatived.
	 Clause 1 accordingly disagreed to.
	 Clause s 2  and 3  ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4
	  
	Obligation to notify subscribers of reported infringements

Tom Watson: I beg to move amendment 36, page 6, leave out lines 16 to 20 and insert
	'infringement of the owner's copyright appears to have taken place by means of an internet access service'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 37, page 6, line 27, at end insert
	'by reason of the work in relation to which the copyright subsists being uploaded or downloaded to peer-to-peer filesharing networks.'.
	Amendment 32, in clause 8, page 11, line 30, after 'copyright', insert 'through peer-to-peer filesharing networks'.
	Amendment 33, page 11, line 31, after 'evidence', insert
	'in relation to subsistence of copyright and infringement of the owner's copyright through peer-to-peer filesharing networks'.
	Amendment 34, page 11, line 42, at end insert-
	'(d) an indication of whether or not it is alleged that the subscriber or anyone else obtained financial or commercial gain from the alleged online copyright infringement through peer-to-peer filesharing networks'.
	Amendment 30, in clause 9, page 12, line 39, after 'copyright', insert 'through peer-to-peer filesharing networks'.
	Amendment 31, page 13, line 11, after 'copyright', insert 'through peer-to-peer filesharing networks'.
	Amendment 27, in clause 10, page 14, line 13, leave out 'by means of the internet' and insert
	'by reason of their infringing copyright through the use of a peer-to-peer file sharing network'.
	Amendment 24, in clause 11, page 15, line 7, after 'providers', insert
	'in relation to online copyright infringement through peer-to-peer filesharing networks'.
	Amendment 40, in clause 17, page 21, line 2, after 'copyright', insert 'through peer-to-peer filesharing networks'.
	Amendment 41, page 21, line 31, at end insert-
	'peer-to-peer filesharing network means a network that allows files to be shared directly from personal computer to personal computer with no intermediate server - thus, peer to peer'.
	New clause 3- Objective of sections 4 to 17 -
	'The objective of the measures in sections 4 to 16 is to move to a lawful means of access to copyright material for consumers and businesses and to reduce unlawful file sharing and other forms of copyright infringement.'.

Tom Watson: Sir Alan, you have always been a very patient man. I want to apologise to you in advance for the number of amendments that I suspect I will be moving alone. I know that you will patiently bear with me, but we have had to submit amendments and to consider our thoughts at light speed. Those people looking in will find the process as baffling as I am sure some of us in the Chamber do.
	This basket of amendments is concerned with some definitions and with the scope of the Bill. Amendment 36 amends clause 4(1). This is about trying to identify liability. The wording in the Bill, as it stands, has an assumption of liability when it comes to people receiving notifications. Of course, a wi-fi network might have been used in a household. A parent might be paying for the broadband connection, whereas their children are illegally downloading. The assumption in the current wording is that that parent has authorised the child's infringement of copyright. My amendment would replace that wording with a neutral meaning to provide reassurance to parents up and down the country, students in houses in multiple occupation and anyone who shares a network, as the legislation would not assume guilt when a notification was sent out.
	Amendment 37 deals with definitions. The lineage of the Bill is that it came out of a consultation that lasted for six months and looked into how we deal with illicit P2P-person-to-person-file sharing. In the amendment, I try to give a narrow definition of P2P file sharing, as opposed to opening up a rather general definition of copyright infringement. If the amendment were accepted, it would probably save embarrassment to many people on both sides of the House because, under the clause as it stands, anyone who downloaded the image of Gene Hunt that has been used by both political parties would be caught by the measure. I will not embarrass one of my very good friends in the Whips Office who every day sends me clipped pieces of news reports from national newspapers, but that practice could be seen as copyright infringement under the clause unless the amendment is accepted.

Edward Vaizey: Name him.

Tom Watson: I shall not name him because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, naming Whips is not a good thing to do, particularly when one is moving an amendment that is hostile to the Government. I think I have chanced my arm enough. This Bill's whole definition has been broadened in the different iterations that have appeared since the original concept in the Digital Britain report, and I am trying to focus it just on P2P file sharing.

Nick Palmer: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is quite a lot of concern among members of the wider public who are interested in these things that this widening seems to be taking place in a Bill that is coming in right at the end of the Parliament, when there is limited scope for consideration? That is one reason why it makes sense to narrow the scope.

Tom Watson: Yes; I have said categorically that if I had my way, the Government would remove clauses 11 to 18. Given the time scale, that would be a sensible way of going forward. I am really trying to tidy up what could be a catastrophic disaster if all the measures are voted through this evening.

Mark Lazarowicz: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and for all the arguments that he has put forward so far this evening and previously. If those measures were removed from the Bill and it turned out that it was incredibly important to consider them at an early stage, I presume that they could be brought forward in the new Parliament in a very short Bill to deal with the matters that had arisen. Do they need to be dealt with tonight, at this stage, or could they be addressed in a few weeks if it was important to do so then?

Tom Watson: I shall not be tempted to go too far on that point, except to say that we heard yesterday that there is broad consensus on some of the measures in the Bill. I feel certain that the House could consider all these clauses again straight after the election and give them the proper scrutiny that they deserve.

Lynne Featherstone: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, given the very real public concern about this Bill, it is much more important to get things right than to get them through?

Tom Watson: Yes; I was rather taken aback yesterday to hear someone-I think it was the Conservative Front Bencher-say, Let's just get this Bill through and if there's anything wrong with it, we can put it right. Ten years into being here, I know that if we do things in a hurry and get them wrong, the law of unintended consequences always kicks in. It would be far better to remove clauses 11 to 18 and have a period of reflection.
	Amendment 34 would place a responsibility on rights holders to inform people whether the infringement that the rights holders have identified was, in their view, done for financial gain or simply because those people decided to infringe. The thinking behind the amendment is that, because the lobby groups that we have talked to have given us a host of what I consider to be rather bogus financial and economic predictions about the effects of illicit file sharing, rights holders and internet service providers should be required to determine whether this so-called online privacy is being done for personal financial gain, or simply because people want to share things that interest them. That would allow us to build up a body of evidence showing the true effects of illicit downloading in the future. I believe that this is a reasonable amendment, and I hope that the Government will consider accepting it.
	Amendments 32, 34, 30, 31, 27, 24 and 40 are consequential, and deal with definition. We want to get the Bill refocused on P2P file sharing alone.

John Hemming: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is making a point about the financial aspect of file sharing, but does he agree that many of the people being criticised in the Bill are children, and that they will not pay for downloads or access to sites because they do not have the money?

Tom Watson: Yes, and the same is true more broadly for people who want to share knowledge, data, culture, art and music with each other. They are not motivated by financial gain. Much of the criticism that the Bill has attracted is based on the fact that it concentrates on the economic impact of file sharing, whereas its social and cultural impact has not really been discussed or teased out.
	Amendment 41 provides a definition of P2P file sharing. The Government have had trouble in that regard, and this amendment is my stab at the problem. It may be a rather folksy and, I guess, amateur attempt but, given that the great people at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills have been unable to come up with a definition, I thought that I would try.
	I turn now to new clause 3. We have been told that the whole thrust of the Bill is to reduce illegal infringement and illicit file sharing by 70 per cent. The use of such a target strikes me as slightly naive and gauche, when we should really be adopting a carrot-and-stick approach. We could reduce copyright infringement and illicit file sharing by 70 per cent., but there is no certainty that that would raise a single penny for the creators and rights holders.
	Accordingly, new clause 3 seeks to remove people from the illegal black or grey markets by placing an obligation on the Government to promote legal downloading. I hope that the greater optimism of that approach will take the place of the pessimism that pervades the Bill.
	With that, I conclude my remarks on this basket of amendments.

David Drew: I am delighted to support the amendments tabled in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson) and for Selby (Mr. Grogan). My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East has put his finger on the problems with the Bill, which are twofold. First, the Bill needs proper scrutiny in this House. That was the basis of yesterday's Second Reading. I did not speak because I hoped that the Government would listen to wiser, brighter and more technically advanced voices than mine, and realise that we need to be careful about what we introduce at such a time. I hoped they would also realise that what seemed merely a technical Bill has become emotive and-dare I say it-quite dangerous. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East has just proved how difficult it will be to word the measure. He showed why we need proper scrutiny in Committee in the normal way, but that is not happening at all.
	My hon. Friend's second point was that the Bill started with quite a narrow focus, but now seems all-encompassing. As he rightly said, the real worry is that we shall pick up the very people we do not want. We are looking for the pirates, the cowboys, the commercial operators and we shall end by picking up children.

Mark Todd: My hon. Friend referred to proper scrutiny. The word he left out was democratic-the phrase should be proper democratic scrutiny. The Bill has been scrutinised in the other place, but it is exactly the kind of measure that deserves the scrutiny of those who represent electors and who have much greater contact with citizens when dealing with matters of this kind. Does my hon. Friend agree?

David Drew: I completely agree. Perhaps my position is unusual, but the Bill is getting me more of a postbag, and certainly more electronic contact, than any other issue at present. A few of us are standing for re-election and could do with getting on with that rather than trying to understand the Digital Economy Bill and trying to explain to people why what they think should be happening-proper scrutiny-is not happening.
	I take the wise words of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East: we need to tighten up the provisions. Like him, I should like to see clauses 11 to 18 go, but we are making a fist of at least refocusing the Bill, to make it narrower. What happened in the other place was almost the reverse of what normally occurs, which is tightening up things that have not been done satisfactorily in this place. Now we have the obverse; the other place seems to have gone on a fishing trip to extend the Bill-I say no more-and we have to try to make good the damage in the most limited time and in the most limited ways.
	I can assure the Committee that our constituents-the people who have e-mailed and written to us-will be watching. They will not be at all pleased, just as they were not pleased yesterday when there was no vote on the Second Reading of this controversial Bill-its first hearing in this House. They will not be happy unless we give the Bill some scrutiny.
	I finish on that point. I do not want to say more on this amendment, as I want to speak on the second group. However, as a number of Labour Members have chosen to stay here and make representations, I think it is fairly clear that we feel very unhappy.

John Grogan: It is with great pleasure that I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew).
	The amendments could have the generic title-The all-praise to Lord Carter amendments, because they seek to restore the Bill to his White Paper. I say quietly, and in parenthesis, that the subtitle might be, Let's dare to question the wisdom of Lord Mandelson. I encourage my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to do that, because I know how closely he worked with Lord Carter on the original proposals that the amendments seek to restore by narrowing the scope of the Bill.
	I have been contacted today by no fewer than three Ministers in Lord Mandelson's empire-I admit that that is a relatively small proportion of the total-and all of them expressed disquiet and said that we should continue to question the measures. They said, We were all lined up with Lord Carter and we conducted an extensive consultation on illegal peer-to-peer file sharing and what should be done about it, but we are deeply unhappy with the wording of the Bill because it is now much broader and talks about online copyright infringement.

Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Does he accept that amendment 34 would bring some sanity to the Bill because it quite specifically states that action should be taken only against those who financially gain from such activity? That is different from the catch-all provision in the Bill that, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson) pointed out, will pick up all kinds of people who merely share information.

John Grogan: My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson) has been working on the amendments night and day in the limited time available-[Hon. Members: One night and one day.] Yes, but he has done a remarkable job. I am attracted by amendment 34, just as I am attracted by amendment 36, which would restore the United Kingdom view of the internet. Up until now, it has been assumed that a subscriber to an internet access service is responsible only for the actions that they take, but the Government's provision has the problem that it goes down the lines of the French model-it was actually rejected in the French courts-that a person is liable for any activity that takes place on an internet access service to which they subscribe.
	Lord Carter would be proud of new clause 3 because it would restore the balance of the Bill by incentivising those who file share and internet service providers to develop new economic models that would result in a return to rights holders-the approach is as much carrot as stick. The stick that Lord Mandelson introduced-again, I speak softly-has completely distorted the Bill.
	I urge the Committee to think carefully about the amendments. We look forward to hearing the Government's response. I do not think that there will be any alternative to voting against Third Reading, given the Bill's lack of democratic scrutiny.

Andy Reed: We have a very short time in which consider the Bill. Would it not have benefited from pre-legislative scrutiny, given that it is so technical and few Members probably understand all aspects of it? If it were to be defeated on Third Reading, I would look forward to it coming back and being scrutinised in such a way.

John Grogan: Many Members in the Chamber-sadly I will not be one of them, because I shall not be here after the election-would make excellent Chairs of such a scrutiny Committee. There would be several candidates, and I would imagine that the Chair would be elected by the whole House-that would be a good way for the new House of Commons to start.
	I will be interested to hear my right hon. Friend the Minister's reply to this short debate. I urge him to return to a position that reflects the spirit of what Lord Carter proposed.

Derek Wyatt: It is alarming, although not surprising, that it took me a search of the internet to discover exactly what amendments had been tabled, rather than finding out through the Vote Office.
	I have raised my confusion about the Bill with the Secretary of State privately. I own the e-mail system that is predominantly used by my family-I sign it off. If one of member of my family was illegally file sharing, I could have my e-mail taken away, or rather I would say to them, Apparently you're illegally file sharing, so if I was you, I'd go along to Gmail or Hotmail and open an account, and could you come off the family account? Under the Bill, all that will happen is that we will endlessly change our ISPs and e-mail addresses. That is not a solution to the fundamental problem that I think that hon. Members want to solve. The critical point is that the intellectual copyright of musicians and artists must be protected online as well as offline. I support what my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson) said, but I do not understand how we got into this situation so late in the day, notwithstanding the apparent scrutiny that the Bill received in the House of Lords.

William Cash: It strikes me that a lot of the difficulties that we are experiencing and hearing about are not dissimilar to those encountered in previous attempts to resist the growth of modern technology. Even in the 16th century, there was an attempt to track down people who set up secret presses; it made no difference. Although the attempt to prevent what is regarded as an illegal use of technology is understandable to achieve certain objectives, it seems to me that, underneath that, there is an attempt to stem a tsunami. The number of people who have connected with their MP, with the public at large, on radio and on television represent a significant core-perhaps even a significantly vast range-of people who simply are not prepared to accept the restrictions that the Bill suggests should be imposed on them.
	Perhaps there are all sorts of legal reasons why the proposals in the Bill have been assembled in a way that would achieve the objectives of the industry, but I have been reading material from the Open Rights Group, the Internet Service Providers Association, the BPI, which represents the UK recorded music business, and others. The chair of the Creative Coalition Campaign and general secretary of Equity says:
	Those employed in the UK's creative industries have waited four years for laws to tackle illegal file-sharing-to delay now would further threaten the contribution that this sector makes to the economy.
	I have no doubt that there is a strong degree of truth in the assertion that people engaged in the creative industries provide a lot of help and sustenance to the economy, but I believe also that it is wrong to pass laws that will be ignored.
	As I described, people simply refused to accept restrictions on freedom of printing, and the same is true of freedom of expression and freedom of speech. We hear a lot of talk about freedom of information. I know that some will say that information can be freely available only if it is regarded as legal information, but over the past few months we have had some experience of illegal information being made available, with interesting consequences. I would not advocate that, but I will say that there is an element of, not only uncertainty, but impossibility in seeking to restrain something without proper consultation, without a properly considered Bill and without the sort of analysis that the subject requires. I have listened carefully to Labour Members; not one has yet suggested that they think that the legislative proposals set out in the Bill are understandable and capable of being explained to the people who would be affected by them. That is the practical question, which, among other reasons, will lead me to vote against Third Reading of the Bill.
	I think that this is a bad Bill in the sense that is being rushed through. It is unthinkable that a Bill of such importance is being rushed through simply because the Prime Minister-I say this with respect to Labour Members-has set out in his five pledges something that approaches the content of the Bill. In addition, we are told that paper amendments are coming down from House of Lords as we speak.
	The bottom line is that we are dealing with a situation that calls out for proper scrutiny. I have just attended the proceedings on the Finance Bill; not one single Government Member was present during the whole course of those proceedings. Perhaps one popped in for 20 minutes, but that was that. However, I have just come from the Dining Rooms and there are about 100 people sitting there, all talking to one another, and I suspect that they are there for a purpose. I suggest that the Government take that on board and realise that they are really up against it. The Bill should not be rushed through. It is not the Dangerous Dogs Bill; it is a very different type of Bill.

Don Foster: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the deliberations in another place, which I think he will acknowledge were extensive, finished on 15 December? There have been three weeks-and in some days, business collapsed and ended early-in which we could have had much greater deliberation on this very important Bill.

William Cash: That is fascinating and very important. It illustrates the point that I have been trying to make, which is that the Bill is being pushed through in a way that is completely contrary to all the discussion that we have had over the past few months about radical parliamentary reform, which I strongly advocate, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and many others in all parts of the House. The Wright Committee proposals have just been kicked not just into touch but into the gutter. The reality is that proposals such as those in the Bill would never get past a House Committee, or a Back-Bench business committee. An example is being set; what the Government have disgracefully done this afternoon with regard to the Wright Committee proposals could be balanced by a significant revolt against the way in which the House is being treated with regard to the Bill.

Austin Mitchell: I will not spend time on the lecture delivered by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), but I agree with him. He has turned cash-and-carry filibusters into a central part of the British constitution, and in this instance, he is absolutely right. I made my main position on the Bill absolutely clear yesterday, and I will not repeat what I said then. I shall be very brief. The central point is that we should not be discussing a series of amendments of this kind, although they are good and welcome amendments, at this late stage in the Bill's progress. The issues should have been discussed in proper scrutiny by the House of Commons, with representations from outside. Pre-legislative scrutiny would have been very helpful, too.
	The main point is that the Bill uses a sledgehammer to crack a nut, so we are inducing a lot of fear in young people. I have had lots of representations-mainly by e-mail, it has to be said, which is a nuisance; I find it difficult to deal with. I have also had representations from young members of the Labour party-we have quite a number in Grimsby-who are all concerned, or frightened, that their harmless peer-to-peer file-sharing activities will be clamped down on. They fear that that will cause trouble for their family's internet connection and will lead to it being cut off. That is exactly the problem. We are not talking about big commercial operators who are defrauding the system; those should indeed be dealt with. The measures will have extensive repercussions for ordinary people with teenagers in the house, or young people around, who share files among themselves, thereby endangering the whole family.

Jeremy Corbyn: I do not know why my hon. Friend thinks that it is only young people who are worried about file sharing on the internet. An awful lot of very serious people are worried that they will lose their internet connection-internet connections that the Government spend a great deal of money promoting. Is he not aware that the measures could lead to the closure of internet cafés?

Austin Mitchell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

The Chairman: Order.

Austin Mitchell: I was not speaking for the silver surfers, of whom my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) is obviously one.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) could not hear me, but I was getting up to say that because he kept turning away from the Chair, I could not hear him. I am sure that I was the greater loser; he should address the Chair.

Austin Mitchell: I am very sorry that my internet connection with you was cut off, Sir Alan, but that is an illustration of what could happen to quite ordinary families, whether the people using the internet are silver surfers or teenagers. The danger is that file sharing, peer to peer, will endanger the connection for the whole family.

Mark Lazarowicz: rose-

Austin Mitchell: I will have to give way to another silver surfer.

Mark Lazarowicz: Is not one of the problems that the whole basis of this measure is that it assumes that the internet providers will not make mistakes? Many of us have people coming to our surgeries with problems with mobile phones or internet access, so mistakes are frequently made. Without an adequate appeals procedure, people will be doubly at risk of being cut off, and not just because they may be downloading illegally. They may be doing nothing wrong at all, but a mistake may have been made, against which they have no valid right of appeal.

Austin Mitchell: That is true, and that is the second reason for supporting the amendment. My third reason would be that it is quite possible for people to snitch and sneak on each other, and report each other to the internet service provider just to make trouble. Again, that trouble can lead to a disconnection. For all those reasons, this use of a heavy weight to crack a quite trivial problem, which fails to deal with the commercial-

Stephen Pound: rose-

Austin Mitchell: I am not sure how to describe my hon. Friend. He is certainly not a silver surfer.

Stephen Pound: More Teenage Kicks, I would have hoped. As ever, my hon. Friend makes a persuasive point. But what happens if you have a young band of transcendent genius, such as Stiff Little Fingers or The Undertones, which is denied the opportunity of its royalties? Does he not realise that there is a case to be made for intellectual property and money coming to those start-up bands?

Austin Mitchell: To answer my hon. Friend's transcendent genius, there is a case to be made for protecting intellectual property, and the Bill tries to make it. But it does so by placing a heavy weight of retribution on people who are not infringing intellectual property for commercial gain, which is what the measure is aimed at. That could be dealt with by altering the Bill, which proper scrutiny would have brought about, rather than by rushing through a piece of legislation that is bound to be damaging because it interferes with the activities of a lot of young people and produces an atmosphere of fear.
	I am all in favour of dealing with commercial infringements for gain and for money, but those that are carried on by young people, peer to peer, should be excluded from the province of this Bill, and the amendments certainly try to do that. That is why they are worthy of support.

Michael Lord: Has the hon. Gentleman completed his contribution? In plain words, has he finished?

Austin Mitchell: I have.

John Hemming: I start by declaring some interests. I am a member of the BPI, the Performing Right Society and the Musicians Union, and I have also run e-commerce companies for more than 10 years.
	The Bill is a complete mess. There is a real problem, and, to be fair, a lot of the market for music is among younger people, so although the industry overestimates the amount of money that it would gain from having a very much more restrictive approach on download, a lot of the music business is involved in selling to teenagers and perhaps even younger children at times. There is an issue here; there is no question about it. Musicians need a way of getting their return.
	The first problem is trying to deal with a very complex issue in the wash-up. It is a completely absurd thing to do. I accept that the industry has had to wait four years for this, but that is not a reason to do it all in one night or two nights. That is a reason to drop clauses 11 to 18 and new clause 1 from the Bill and examine the matter properly in the new Parliament.
	The dangers lie with sites such as WikiLeaks, which is a good example to look at. It publishes leaked Government information, on which Governments always have the copyright. A recent example is the US air force video, which it published. Copyright exists with the US Government, who under the Bill could, and would want to, apply to ban WikiLeaks from the UK. That provision is clearly in the Bill. Yesterday I gave the example of freedom of information. Most local authorities, when they send people freedom of information requests, say, By the way, we keep the copyright on this. They keep the copyright, and they could say, There are websites that report on freedom of information requests, and they can be banned as well. I know that it sounds absurd.
	This debate comes down to the fact that we need to review copyright, fair use and where copyright does and does not exist. On the one hand, the Government are imposing massive restrictions on copyright, whereby any situation involving any vague copyright suddenly means banning everyone in the family from the internet. On the other, the Government are taking from a television programme a picture of an Audi Quattro and mashing it up-and then somebody else is doing the same thing. We have that absurdity.
	In my previous life I did a little computer programming for my casework system, and I still do. With computer programming, a small amount of code can have a massive impact. A plane that flies on duff computer programming can actually crash, and the same applies to laws. Computer programming involves testing, and the lesson is that we should test things rigorously before letting them go live. With laws we have scrutiny, and that process should be rigorous, particularly when it involves something that is a part of so many people's daily lives.
	The amendments are welcome, but the Government's big mistake has been to take on this most complex issue, which has wide implications. WikiLeaks is a good example to consider, as are the websites that report on freedom of information requests, because the Bill would give the US Government the opportunity to ban people from looking at WikiLeaks. I am sure that the Government do not wish to achieve that end, but the way to deal with the issue is not to push the Bill through in two nights without any adequate scrutiny, and not to push through new clause 1 or clauses 11 to 18-although I understand that clause 18 will actually be disagreed to. The way to deal with the issue properly is to spend some time on it in the new Parliament, so that it can be examined from all angles. There is a real problem, but let us not make a real mess of it in order to deal with just one aspect.

Nick Palmer: I shall be brief, because time is short. I am possibly one of the few Members who have suffered directly from illegal copying. When I produced my video game it was almost immediately copied, and I presume that I lost some royalties from that. So I do not consider this to be a completely trivial problem, as has been suggested.
	However, there are two basic difficulties. First, the remedy is inappropriate. I am completely open to the argument that we should have stricter penalties for people who seek to make money out of illegal copying, from which many young people, to whom we referred earlier, might benefit. However, young people are not the primary instigators. The primary instigators are the people who make the original illegal copy and sell it on for gain. If we blocked internet access for individuals who make use of illegal copying, that would be inappropriate in two ways: they are not the primary instigators, and although we can imagine that perhaps they should be fined, we would be denying them access at a time when society as a whole increasingly depends on access, and when we are attempting to reduce the digital divide. By analogy, if I misused the postal service and as a penalty I was no longer allowed to receive letters, that would simply not be the right solution.
	Secondly, owners of copyright are generally quite powerful in their financial resources. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound) that some of them may be start-up bands and not very well set, but there has been reluctance among major companies to pursue copyright infringements. Sometimes the infringements can be helpful in their marketing. As one of my constituents has said to me, targeting ISPs is a bit as though we were prosecuting road maintenance workers because the council had failed to impose the correct restrictions on how the roads were used. The ISP should not be our primary target in attempting to attack the problem.

William Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that, although we will not get the opportunity to look into it, there is a lot to be said for confining the offences to those who are both organised and acting for profit on a commercial basis? Any attempt to place a restriction on young people and then provide for an astonishing mechanism of appeals to a first-tier tribunal seems unbelievable. Young people who are engaged in the activities in question as a matter of practice will not be restrained, despite what everyone might want to say. We might end up producing an unworkable law on a fast track through the House, when there are remedies if we could only get down to the business of considering them properly.

Nick Palmer: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Either the law will be effective or it will not. If it is effective, it will impose intolerable sanctions on individuals who are not the main instigators. If it is ineffective, we are wasting our time. I agree that the focus should be on the wholesale commercial violators. I would be very much in favour of stricter penalties for them, because I recognise that there is a genuine problem.

Edward Vaizey: I commend the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson), who has set himself up as the digital tsar of the House of Commons and an expert on all matters to do with the creative industries. He is filling a vacuum left by the Government, who have refused to replace the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Simon) since he resigned as Minister with responsibility for the creative industries.

Tom Watson: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's praise. I guess the vacuum that I am filling is the one left by the lack of amendments tabled by Conservative Front Benchers.

Edward Vaizey: I will come on to that. I was going to commend the hon. Gentleman for his amendments, and he has been open and honest in saying that they are probing amendments that he scribbled on the back of an envelope this morning at 100 megabits a second. He knows that we have not had time to scrutinise them or for the Government to redraft them.
	That is the point that I wish to address. If we had listened in isolation to the Labour contributions, we would have heard the most extraordinary bleating from the hon. Gentleman and from the hon. Members for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew). One would have thought that this was not their Government. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East is one of the Prime Minister's closest friends, and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby is one of the House's most eminent Members. The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Derek Wyatt) is a former Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Do they not know Ministers and the Prime Minister? Were they not able to say months ago, Bring this Bill into the House of Commons and scrutinise it?
	We hear talk of Lord Carter of Barnes, the author and éminence grise of the Bill, as though he were somehow passed away, deceased and spinning in his grave. No, he is alive and well. He spoke in support of the Bill on Second Reading in the other place. It is true that he has left the country-many people are poised to leave the country if the Labour Government win again, and Lord Carter was simply anticipating that possible eventuality-but he is on his mobile phone and Members could ring him up to see what he thinks. It is pathetic for Labour Members to pretend that the fact that we have had two hours to debate the Bill on Second Reading and one hour in Committee has nothing to do with them. They are responsible for the lack of scrutiny of the Bill, and that must be put on the record.

Nick Palmer: Is the hon. Gentleman going to proceed from his party political knockabout to tell us what the Conservative party's position is? Were it to take power, would it not do something very similar?

Edward Vaizey: We decided to support the Bill in principle. We would have loved to scrutinise the clauses being debated now and to table and debate amendments in the House. However, we supported the Bill in principle, and we support the principle that something should be done to combat illegal file sharing. In fact, every single Labour Member who has spoken has said that they support the principle that something should be done to combat illegal file sharing; they simply said that there is not enough scrutiny to make the Bill work, and whose fault is that? It is the fault of Labour Members.

Christopher Chope: If my hon. Friend is suggesting that the remedy proposed by those who tabled the amendments is wrong, what remedy does he think should be put in place instead?

Edward Vaizey: We simply make the point that there is not time-we have been put in an invidious position. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) has made this absolutely clear. The astonishing position of the Labour Members-it's nothing to do with me, guv!-is absolutely incredible.

Tom Watson: The hon. Gentleman is a very good friend of mine, and that is the most intellectually disingenuous contribution I have heard in the debate. If I, as a raggedy Back Bencher, can table a dozen amendments in 12 hours and write a speech, he should pull his finger out and do the same.

Edward Vaizey: The hon. Gentleman is not even going to move all his amendments; he is simply putting them forward for form's sake. I ask him what conversations he had with the Prime Minister-a close personal friend of his-who could have brought this Bill forward for scrutiny. The fault lies on the Labour Benches and with those hon. Members who could have brought the Bill forward for scrutiny. I rest my case, Sir Michael.

Stephen Timms: I ask the House to resist the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson). Clause 4 deals with the obligation to notify. Several points have been made that will be raised later, but I shall comment on some of them now.
	It is important for the House to be clear that we are debating the circumstances in which people should be notified that a copyright infringement has occurred. My hon. Friend said that the remedy is inappropriate, but let us be clear that the remedy here is to send people a letter informing them that a copyright infringement has occurred. I hope that, in dealing with peer-to-peer file sharing, as this part of the Bill does, that measure-sending letters to people-on its own will lead to a substantial reduction in the incidence of the unlawful activity about which we are concerned. Many people have rightly spoken about the seriousness of the concern about the current level of unlawful activity under way.

Don Foster: I apologise for interrupting so early, but will the Minister make it clear to the House that the ambition to reduce the number of illegal file sharing activities will be met not though letter-writing alone, but by placing requirements on the industry to develop new models that make it easier for people to legally access their material at an affordable price?

Stephen Timms: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is very important that the industry does that and develops an effective education campaign. In fact, I have seen some interesting proposals to do that, which I hope will go forward. However, we need legislation as well. The House needs to be clear that we cannot make headway on this issue unless we have legislation along the lines proposed.
	Stepping back from the detail of the amendments, let me make a couple of points. Does anything really need to be done to address online copyright infringement? A subsidiary question might be: is legislation the right vehicle to do so? In a number of the speeches that we have heard, hon. Members have expressed misgivings about some aspects of the Bill. I am thinking, for example, of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Derek Wyatt), who, in his speech on Second Reading yesterday, strongly supported the need to support the creative industries in the Bill. However, my sense is that there is a pretty broad acceptance across the House that we are talking about a serious matter, that it needs to be addressed and that legislation is appropriate for addressing it.
	There is certainly significant harm to our creative industries resulting from the current level of online copyright infringement. That harm is estimated in the impact assessment for the Bill at £400 million for music, film and TV. Others have come up with a larger figure for the content industries more widely. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East talked about the games industry, which is certainly affected by online copyright infringement. The figure that the International Chamber of Commerce estimated for the scale of the problem is £1 billion, or perhaps more, so we are talking about a serious problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) suggested that we are taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but it is not a nut; it is a serious problem that needs to be addressed.

William Cash: There is a real problem, but there is also a problem of proportionality and realism. I return to the question that I put to the Minister earlier, which is simply this. I object to the speed at which the Bill is being progressed, but leaving that aside for the moment, if the Bill was more focused on that £400 million, or whatever figure the Minister quoted for the loss to legitimate complainants whose copyright was being infringed, so that only those who were organised and engaged in such activity for commercial advantage were affected, those complainants would get the benefit of a piece of legislation that was directed at something that can actually be tackled. The problem is that we are trying to engage in a surveillance society-like attack on young people, who will not take any notice and in respect of whom there will be no reasonable way of enforcing the Bill.

Stephen Timms: The hon. Gentleman's characterisation of clause 4 is quite wrong. It is a very focused provision, dealing with the problem of unlawful downloading by means of peer-to-peer file sharing, which accounts for the lion's share of the problem, although that will no doubt change in future. Clause 4 is proportionate to the scale of the problem, and we have come up with an effective method to address it. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) suggested that the provision had been added at a late stage, but that is not the case. It has been in the Bill from when it was published.
	There are strong feelings on the issue, but let me say this to the House. We have heard the strength of feeling against what is in the Bill, which many people have expressed. However, the House also needs to recognise both the strength of feeling on the other side of the debate-a feeling that we need to move, as we are in this Bill-and its importance, not only given the point of view of an economically significant part of UK activity, but in terms of the number of people affected. That is reflected, for example, in the campaign of the Creative Coalition Campaign, the trade unions representing workers in the film industry and others. In the end, the House has to take a view. There are different and opposing views being expressed, and we have to take a view about what is right.

John Hemming: On the practicalities of clause 4, proposed new section 124A(6)(d) of the Communications Act 2003 talks about collecting the IP address, which will be supplied to the internet service provider. How is that to be achieved?

Stephen Timms: When a copyright owner identifies that their copyright has been obtained by somebody without payment, they will notify the details to the ISP. The ISP will then send a letter to the customer who is responsible for that account. We are simply talking about letters being sent at that stage. I challenge anyone to suggest that sending such a letter would be a disproportionate response, given the scale of the problem.

John Hemming: rose-

John Randall: rose-

Stephen Timms: I will not give way. I need to make a bit more headway before I give way again.
	It is right that we ask the industry to help to educate consumers and-as the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) rightly suggested-to develop the kind of attractive commercial deals that consumers want, at a price that they are willing to pay. However, we need legislation as well.
	Turning to amendment 36, I think it appropriate that we should ask an internet access subscriber to be responsible for trying to ensure that their access is not used for unlawful purposes. That is what the current wording of the Bill does. Perfectly proper concerns have been expressed about children downloading material unlawfully. I remind the House that, under the clause, a letter would be sent to the person responsible for the internet access, to inform them that unlawful downloading had occurred. It would be a matter for them to ensure that their internet access was safeguarded. Sending a letter is entirely appropriate in such circumstances.

Mark Todd: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Stephen Timms: I would be grateful to my hon. Friend if he will forbear for a moment while I make a little more headway.
	A couple of people have suggested that we should send out these letters only if people are doing this for financial gain, but I cannot accept that argument at all. That is almost like arguing that stealing is wrong only if it is being done for financial gain, and I do not think that anyone would seriously maintain that that is the case. It would depend on how one defined financial gain, but I believe that it would be wrong to restrict this measure to cases in which there was clear commercial gain. People who take what others have paid for without paying for it are doing something that is already illegal; that is clear in the law at the moment. To say that we should not send a letter to such people is quite wrong.

Tom Watson: The amendment does not seek to do that. It seeks to oblige people to say whether they think the infringement is for financial gain or not. That would enable the industry to gather its own evidence on how deep the piracy runs and how much of it involves people sharing not for financial gain. This is important because, if the Bill is going to go through-and there is an insistence that it does-there will be an emerging debate in the industry about incorporating a fair use clause following copyright reform. I hope that the Government will accept that this is about helping the industry to get its figures right. It is not about targeting a particular group; it is about collecting evidence.

Stephen Timms: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reassurance, but I do not think that we need to amend the Bill to enable the industry to collect data in that way. He is perfectly right about the need for us to reform copyright. The Minister for Higher Education and Intellectual Property, who was with me on the Front Bench yesterday, intervened to point out that the Government are developing a copyright strategy, which is certainly needed in the light of online technological developments. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East, however, that we ought not to give the impression that it is okay for someone to take something that they should have paid for without paying for it, so long as they are not doing it for commercial gain.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Stephen Timms: I give way first to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall).

John Randall: It really is kind of the Minister to give way. I support him in what he says about copyright. I have a real problem, however, as a result of a constituency case in which someone was accused of illegal downloading. We found out that the IP number-I have to say that I am a member of the Luddite society on this issue-was not unique, so the provider gave an IP number and the person who thought that copyright had been infringed wrote to a person who had nothing to do with the infringement. What worries me is that, because the IP number is not unique to one particular person, there is a chance of innocent people being accused.

Stephen Timms: There are some particular issues about mobile networks, and we could get into discussion about how to address them. When it comes to ordinary internet access, the case is quite straightforward. I remind the House that at this stage we are talking only about a letter being sent; that is all.

John Hemming: I return to the point that it does not matter whether the IP is version 4 or version 6. How can we get the IP address, as the copyright owner does not have control over the server from which the data are being accessed?

Stephen Timms: The copyright owner can obtain the information by observing the fact that somebody has downloaded material that is their copyright, which can be done by using the same P2P methods that the downloaders use. From that information, it is clear which service provider has provided that connection. The copyright owner gives the information to the internet service provider, but he does not know who is breaching the copyright; he does not know anything other than a technical address. The internet service provider, however, knows who is responsible for the account, and it writes to the individual to inform them that a breach has occurred.
	I say to my hon. Friends that these amendments are not appropriate.

Mark Todd: rose-

Stephen Timms: I gladly give way to another of my hon. Friends.

Mark Todd: I thank my right hon. Friend. I wanted to draw his attention to his repeated use of the phrase that an infringement of copyright had occurred. In fact, what the Bill says is somewhat different-that what is required is that the copyright owner produce information about an apparent breach of copyright. I am puzzled about the test that must be applied to demonstrate that a genuine breach has actually occurred as opposed to an apparent perception of the same on the part of the copyright owner. I spent 20 years in the media industry, so I know that demonstrating precise copyright ownership is not by any means as straightforward as might be assumed.

Stephen Timms: I think that the copyright owner will be clear about what copyright they own. I say again to my hon. Friend, however, that in this part of the Bill, we are talking only about letters being sent. Clause 4 is about the circumstances under which a letter will be sent and to whom. We will come on later to the possibility of technical measures, which I hope we will never need to invoke because I hope that the letters alone will be sufficient to reduce the incidence of the problem.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey said that people can simply change their e-mail address, but it is actually much harder and more difficult, although not impossible, to change one's internet access. We want to create an environment in which it is clear when people are doing things that they should not be doing and an environment in which they are discouraged from doing them. That is what this part of the Bill will provide.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) asked about technical measures which are not in this part of the Bill. I can, however, reassure him that no one will be subject to technical measures until they have received a number of letters, or notifications, and had an opportunity to appeal. We may come to those measures later.
	I hope that the Committee will accept that ours is an effective and proportionate proposal, and will oppose the amendments.

Tom Watson: My right hon. Friend suggested that I was making the case that the clause was a sledgehammer to crack a nut. That is not true. I understand the magnitude of the problem. I am making the case that the clause is a steamroller, crushing any democratic accountability that the House may claim to have. Given that we have so little time, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Tom Watson: I beg to move amendment 39, page 7, line 36, after 'subscriber', insert
	'which have been the subject of notifications sent after the effective date of an order made by the Secretary of State under section 124H'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 38, page 7, line 39, leave out 'electronic or'.
	Amendment 26, in clause 11, page 15, leave out lines 21 and 22.
	Amendment 16, page 15, line 25, after 'section', insert-
	'(a) before the super-affirmative procedure under section 124HA has completed, and
	(b) '.
	Government amendments 44 and 45.
	Amendment 17, page 15, line 27, at end add-
	'124HA Super-affirmative procedure
	(1) The Secretary of State must have regard to-
	(a) any representations,
	(b) any resolutions of either House of Parliament, and
	(c) any recommendations of a committee of either House of Parliament charged with reporting on the draft order,
	made during the 60-day period with regard to the draft order.
	(2) If, after the expiry of the 60-day period, the Secretary of State wishes to make an order in the terms of the draft, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a statement-
	(a) stating whether any representations were made under subsection (1)(a); and
	(b) if any representations were so made, giving details of them.
	(3) The Secretary of State may after the laying of such a statement make an order in the terms of the draft if it is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
	(4) However, a committee of either House charged with reporting on the draft order may, at any time after the laying of a statement under subsection (2) and before the draft order is approved by that House under subsection (3), recommend under this subsection that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the draft order.
	(5) Where a recommendation is made by a committee of either House under subsection (4) in relation to a draft order, no proceedings may be taken in relation to the draft order in that House under subsection (3) unless the recommendation is, in the same Session, rejected by resolution of that House.
	(6) If, after the expiry of the 60-day period, the Secretary of State wishes to make an order consisting of a version of the draft order with material changes, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament-
	(a) a revised draft order; and
	(b) a statement giving details of any representations made under subsection (1)(a) and of the revisions proposed.
	(7) The Secretary of State may after laying a revised draft order and statement under subsection (6) make an order in the terms of the revised draft if it is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
	(8) However, a committee of either House charged with reporting on the revised draft order may, at any time after the revised draft order is laid under subsection (6) and before it is approved by that House under subsection (7), recommend under this subsection that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the revised draft order.
	(9) Where a recommendation is made by a committee of either House under subsection (8) in relation to a revised draft order, no proceedings may be taken in relation to the revised draft order in that House under subsection (7) unless the recommendation is, in the same Session, rejected by resolution of that House.
	(10) For the purposes of subsections (3) and (7) an order is made in the terms of a draft order if it contains no material changes to the provisions of the draft order.
	(11) In this section the 60-day period means of the period of 60 days beginning with the day on which the draft order was laid before Parliament under section 124H.
	(12) In calculating the 60-day period no account is to be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which either House is adjourned for more than four days.'.

Tom Watson: Clause 4 deals with the obligation to notify subscribers of a copyright infringement. The Minister himself has described it as the so-called sending letters clause. I am deeply upset that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) is not present, as he spent considerable time lecturing the House on the fact that it was only about sending letters. To him it was simply about a letter-writing campaign to educate the nation on what its children might or might not be doing in regard to copyright infringement.
	It is because the Minister himself said that the clause was only about sending letters that I was curious and concerned about subsection (8)(d), which suggests that
	copyright infringement reports relating to the subscriber may be taken into account for the purposes of any technical measures.
	The amendment states explicitly that those letters will not be taken into account until Ofcom has prepared its report and the technical measures stage is reached.
	Amendment 38-peculiarly, given that this is the Digital Economy Bill-is an analogue amendment. The Bill allows notifications to be sent either by post or by e-mail, but the amendment seeks to remove the capacity for them to be sent by e-mail. This is simply about the digital age. Many digital natives have huge amounts of dormant e-mail accounts. Indeed, if a Member of Parliament were suspected of copyright infringement in the next six weeks and had given his or her parliament.uk e-mail address to the ISP, it is highly likely that he or she would miss the e-mail. Members of the Communication Workers Union may also be grateful for the fact that Royal Mail will have more post to deal with.

Jeremy Corbyn: How does my hon. Friend expect a name and address to be discovered so that a letter can be sent, given that all previous correspondence may have taken place by means of e-mail and fictitious names may have been used?

Tom Watson: If someone has an ISP connection, the bill is likely to be sent to a postal address, which will allow more certainty. People receiving notifications by e-mail may not see them.

Mark Todd: Is my hon. Friend sure that a postal delivery will suffice? Many people may have chosen to form a contract with an ISP at some stage before moving, and may not have seen any particular reason to notify the ISP of a change of address.

Tom Watson: My hon. Friend has identified a further flaw in the clause that I had not. The importance of the postal address is that if clause 4(8)(d) goes through and the number of notifications is taken into account when it comes to technical measures, there is an incentive for people to appeal at the first notification, even if they know that it is their next-door neighbour who has stolen their bandwidth and downloaded something that infringes copyright. They may have put a security measure on, but this could still be taken into account if a further copyright infringement takes place, so my proposal seeks to provide clarity on that.
	Amendment 26 is about the powers of the Secretary of State. The Bill, as drafted, provides for the Secretary of State to decide to take technical measures at any point. If a Secretary of State were less charitable than the current incumbent-let us suppose that a successor was a lickspittle to a media oligarch who just gave instructions from his tax haven abroad-people could be cut off as a result of a single allegation of infringement by some hokey rights holder. The amendment seeks to remove or curtail the powers of the Secretary of State.

Mark Todd: I just wish to strengthen that point. Does my hon. Friend share my surprise at the confidence of our Front-Bench spokesman in the ability of a copyrighter to demonstrate copyright, which is an area of extraordinary legal complexity where an assertion that someone has had their copyright infringed may have no basis whatsoever in fact?

Tom Watson: As we see now-there are other amendments ahead of us-suspect practices take place whereby people make dubious allegations of copyright infringement to try to increase their revenue and frighten ordinary citizens. Thus I think my hon. Friend is right.
	The three amendments are about providing clarity and certainty that the notification process takes place, and about curtailing the power of any future Secretary of State to abuse their judgment.

Stephen Pound: I am sure I cannot be the only Member of the House who feels considerable distaste at this list of sanctions, which can range from reducing someone's bandwidth to imposing a daily download limit. What worries me is that although my hon. Friend is addressing that issue, I have not yet heard an answer to the question relating to musicians, authors, poets, playwrights and film makers. What can we give them to protect their intellectual copyright and allow them to flourish, while rightly maintaining a neo-libertarian stance and trying to avoid a situation in which people get letters and go before second-tier tribunals?

Tom Watson: I understand the point. I am sorry that my hon. Friend was not here on Second Reading, because some suggestions were made as to how we could do that. I would like there to be statutory licensing for online music. That is how we destroyed pirate radio in the 1960s; it took a Labour Government to oppose it for nine years, then we moved and that breathed life into the commercial radio sector. If I carry on talking like this I will be drawn away from the purpose of my amendments. I hope my hon. Friend knows that we both want the music industry to thrive. However, because this Bill has not been given adequate scrutiny we have not been able to improve it. The amendments that I have tabled are an expression of my legitimate concern that music lovers and internet users alike will not get justice if an allegation is made against them. This is not an attack on the music industry, and I hope that the tenor of his argument is along those lines; this is about trying to obtain a necessary settlement for people who have been accused of copyright infringement.

Don Foster: We are often concerned about why members of the public hold us in such low regard, but anybody observing our proceedings tonight will not be convinced that this House is doing its job of holding the Government to account. We have spent more than an hour discussing just one clause of a 50-clause Bill in the knowledge that we have less than an hour left to cover all the remaining clauses-that is hardly evidence that we are doing our job properly. It is frankly totally disgraceful that a Bill of this complexity has been given so little time for debate in this House.
	As I said earlier, it would have been possible to have the Second Reading much earlier-nearly three weeks ago-and to have had full deliberations in Committee for a three-week period before bringing the Bill back for the final stages. That is why so many of us are in such a difficult position. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson) has already moved a number of really important probing amendments about various aspects of the legislation. We already know that this evening there will be no time to discuss, for instance, orphan works and the very legitimate concerns raised by photographers. That means that we will all be forced, I suspect, to vote against new clause 43.
	There will be no opportunity to discuss why the Government are going to announce later this evening that they are backing down on one of their cherished projects, which is to have independently funded news consortiums, or to discuss in detail the other very important amendments tabled by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East, me and other Members.
	I speak to amendments 16 and 17 in particular. On Second Reading, I acknowledged that there was a serious problem in terms of providing support to our creative industries, which are losing hundreds of millions of pounds because of illegal activity on the internet. Action needs to be taken. That is why we have been willing to consider supporting the string of clauses-4 to 17-on illegal peer-to-peer file sharing.
	We pointed out then that three additional conditions need to be put in place. The first was that we needed to have the super-affirmative resolution to ensure that the next Parliament could have proper scrutiny of any proposals to introduce technical measures, which we believe should be introduced only as a last resort based on clear evidence of the need for them. The super-affirmative resolution is what is proposed in amendments 16 and 17.
	We also said that we needed to resolve the serious problems faced by our universities, schools and wi-fi cafés to ensure that they will not fall foul of this legislation, given that they often have one IP address and a very large number of users. That is the case, for example, in this place. Many of us use the same IP address.
	We also said that we need to address the time scale in which the initial obligations code is produced by Ofcom, arguing that it could not possibly be given full justice if it was done within a six-month period, given that three of those months have to be spent in consultation with our European colleagues.

Adam Afriyie: The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that there is not enough time to consider this Bill in great detail. I am pleased that the Government have dropped one or two of the measures that they were going to introduce. There is some merit to his point about a super-affirmative resolution, but will he explain why it is relevant for clause 18, on site blocking, which his amendment seems to tackle, but not for clause 11, on technical measures?

Don Foster: I fear that the hon. Gentleman ought to do his homework a little better. If he reads the amendment that we are debating, he will see that that is exactly what it does. It proposes a super-affirmative resolution in relation to clause 11, which is what I said a few moments ago.
	I am grateful to the Government for the fact that, although they have not entirely accepted the concept of a super-affirmative resolution, they have at an incredibly late hour-this afternoon-now tabled amendments 44 and 45. They go a long way, if not the whole way, towards addressing the concern about the need for a super-affirmative resolution. However, I believe it is crucial that we should have the maximum opportunity for scrutiny in the new Parliament. There should be an amendable resolution before that House before the severe technical measures are introduced. That is why I have tabled these amendments.

John Grogan: I want to say a few words about the concept of the super-affirmative resolution procedure, which I had never heard of before last week when I was having my photograph taken with six members of the Mongolian Revolutionary People's party-a sister party of the Labour party-and Lord Mandelson. That is not an event that happens every day, but it did happen last week. Lord Mandelson whispered super-affirmative resolution in my ear. I was not quite sure what he was referring to, but I realised I would have to explain it to my Mongolian friends later, so I looked it up. It certainly is not the answer to the democratic deficit in this Bill, which will give Ministers of whichever party forms the Government after the election extensive powers to lay orders that will basically translate the principles of the Bill, which are very bad principles for much of it, into legislation.
	Such orders will not be rushed through a legislative Committee of the House, as often happens with orders. Instead, there will be a 90-day consultation process in which a Committee-it is usually the Regulatory Reform Committee, but I do not know whether it would be another Committee at that stage-will take evidence. The Committee will also be able to propose amendments, but in the end the Government will be able to go through the normal procedures of getting an order through. Heavily whipped, the order will no doubt go through the House whichever Government is in power and on to the House of Lords. The idea that everyone in this House and outside who is concerned about the democratic deficit in the Bill can breathe a sigh of relief because we now have a super-affirmative procedure promise is far from the truth. The only super procedure that we need in this House is the old-fashioned super procedure of MPs considering a Bill line by line and giving it proper scrutiny. That is the super procedure we need, and the only way we will get it is by voting against Third Reading.

Nick Palmer: I am just concerned, as are a lot of people out there, that what is underlying this debate is a Front-Bench stitch-up. None of the Front Benchers are saying clearly that they are taking a different course. They are whingeing at length about the process, but we are not hearing an alternative concept. For me, the basic case for what is being proposed has not been made, and until we have a coherent case, I am going to vote against it.

Stephen Timms: Let me comment on the three amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson) moved at the outset of the debate. On the first amendment, I can give him an assurance that technical measures will not be imposed until Ofcom has concluded its report. On the second amendment, we will certainly need to cover, in the code that the Bill requires to be drawn up, how the notifications will be sent out. I thought that his comments on that issue made a good deal of sense, but that is something that Ofcom will need to address, in conjunction with the industry, when drawing up the code.
	On my hon. Friend's concern about giving undue power to a future Secretary of State, it is certainly right that imposing technical obligations is a big and undoubtedly controversial step to take. That is why clause 11 requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the assessment prepared by Ofcom as to whether technical measures should be imposed as well as to the reports prepared under clause 9. We have agreed that those documents should be published so that everyone can see the evidence that will inform the decision.
	My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) have made a telling point. It is right that Parliament should have the greatest opportunity to scrutinise and debate the order. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has today tabled the amendment that the hon. Member for Bath mentioned, which provides for the super-affirmative procedure. The procedure is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) rightly said, quite a novel arrangement. I thought he was going to tell us that it is well known in Mongolia, but he did not.
	However, the procedure underlines the extent to which we want to maximise proper parliamentary scrutiny. Government amendment 45 sets out how it will work; proposed subsection (8) states:
	In preparing a draft order...the Secretary of State must have regard to any of the following that are made with regard to the draft order during the 60-day period,
	while proposed paragraph (b) of the subsection specifies,
	any recommendations of a committee of either House of Parliament charged with reporting on the draft order.
	I think that is a significant move, as it amends the Bill to address some of the concerns raised in amendment 26, the third moved by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East.
	The hon. Member for Bath talked about education and universities, but they are covered in the next group of amendments, so I will say no more about those matters now. He said that he would prefer it if Ofcom had more than six months to prepare the code, but I remind him that that period will not begin until two months after this Bill gets Royal Assent. That means that we are looking at rather longer than the six months stated on the face of the Bill.
	In view of the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East will not press his amendment to a vote, and that the House will accept the Government amendments.

Tom Watson: I am reassured about the first amendment in the group. However, I am not convinced on what my right hon. Friend has said about the second amendment, and certainly not by what he has said about the third. Nevertheless, because the House has important amendments still to discuss, I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 39.
	 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	 Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	 Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6
	  
	Approval of code about the initial obligations

Don Foster: I beg to move amendment 15, page 8, line 25, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 35, page 8, line 29, after 'case', insert
	'or in relation to a particular class of internet service providers or subscribers'.
	Amendment 14, page 8, line 33, at end insert-
	'(c) specifies reasonable rights and obligations in relation to a subscriber that is a library, an educational or cultural establishment, hotelier or internet cafe as a provider of networks operating between an internet service provider and a user of the network.'.
	Amendment 29, in clause 10, page 14, line 31, at end insert-
	'( ) an economic and social impact assessment as to whether any application of the technical measures will be proportionate to its likely affect on, inter alia, subscribers, households, businesses, users of wi-fi networks, not-for-profit organisations, libraries, educational establishments and the internet network; and'.
	Amendment 43, in clause 13, page 16, line 35, leave out 'and' and insert-
	'( ) that those provisions are proportionate to their effect and take into account the impact upon, and relevant arrangements made by, an educational establishment, prescribed library or accredited museum in order to achieve what the provisions are intended to achieve; and'.

Don Foster: I shall be very brief indeed. The House will know that I have already raised the concerns expressed by very many people about universities, libraries, small businesses, wi-fi cafes and the like. These organisations often have a very large number of users on a single system and could very easily fall foul of the legislation unless we ensure that that does not happen.
	In another place, my noble Friend Lord Clement-Jones tabled an amendment to solve the problem, and he was given an assurance by the Government that it would be dealt with in the obligations code to be drawn up by Ofcom. Since that time, however, no amendment to that effect has been forthcoming from the Government-perhaps because we have had so little time to discuss any of these issues.
	Therefore, to save the Government time and to help them out, we have drafted an amendment that would give effect to the promise that they made in another place. In that spirit, I hope that the Government will be willing to accept it.

Tom Watson: I have tabled some of the amendments in this group. Amendment 35 is really a reaction to the Bill's economic impact assessment which, frankly, was fairly hopeless. It did not look at the impact on libraries, hotels, internet cafes or any other institution that might have wi-fi. The problem is the lack of clarity about what constitutes a service provider, and the amendment would enable Ofcom to define special categories of service provider, such as libraries, universities and institutions, that provide open wi-fi networks.
	Amendments 29 and 43 deal with how we assess the technical measures that need to be taken. The aim is to provide some safeguards to ensure that such measures are proportionate. Obviously, we could take a technical measure to remove internet access from a parent because their child had been infringing, but that parent might sustain a small business in their home, employing a number of people. We should be removing those people from employment. There are many examples showing that the technical measures might be unfair and disproportionate to the infringement that had taken place. The amendments would provide protections in the Bill, so that Ofcom had an obligation to measure its proportionality and fairness.

Denis MacShane: I rise as a parent and a former president of the National Union of Journalists to humbly suggest to the Committee that the labourer is worthy of his hire. If someone puts his intellectual effort into writing an article, making some music or creating something, it should not be stolen from him and handed out free through the power of the internet.
	As a parent, I have to say that it may not be the most unwelcome thing in the world for a father or mother to tell their child, Actually, you can't spend all evening on the internet. I understand why the Liberal Democrats-representing big capitalism-generally oppose the measure, but as a socialist I am astonished that any Labour MP-

Tom Watson: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not hear the earlier parts of this debate or Second Reading yesterday. He has just walked into the Chamber and expressed astonishment, but there are legitimate concerns about people having access to justice if allegations of copyright infringement are made under the Bill. Those are the people we are standing up for-our constituents who may lose their livelihoods as a result of the Bill's being bounced through in an hour. I hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would have had a more proportionate response to our legitimate concerns.

Denis MacShane: I have been following the debate in great detail. In the very last debate of this Labour Government, some of my hon. Friends are telling my journalist colleagues and others that they do not have the right to protect that which they have created, and to have some modest share of the value they add to our economy, because that would represent problems for wi-fi providers, internet café owners or hotels. That is not something I am happy with, and that is why, in the last, dying hours of a Labour Government, I am doing something that may be difficult for colleagues, which is to support a Labour Government. I do so not from Labour loyalty, but because I profoundly believe that the explosion of the net-of information provision-which I welcome, must not deny those who add value to it their chance to have some share of that which they produce.

Don Foster: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Denis MacShane: A Liberal Democrat asks me to give way. We are in the last dying hours of this Parliament. That party has always stood up for the rich and the privileged against the rights of journalists and trade unionists. I will not give way. If he wants to make another speech, he can do so.

Stephen Timms: I agree that what we are doing on infringement must not undermine our efforts to ensure that there is good public access to broadband and to rich content. Everybody will agree that that is important. We should not act to make commercial provision something that coffee shops, pubs or hotel chains will have to think twice about.
	We need to put the provisions in context. It would not be right to introduce a large and growing loophole in what we are doing. If we did so, there would be serious consequences for providers. We need to keep that concern in mind.
	Universities tend to take tough action against students or staff found infringing copyright, not just because it is unlawful, but because it clogs up valuable resource-bandwidth needed for legitimate use, including file sharing of research. However, I agree that libraries, universities and the rest need to be sent appropriate advice on reasonable steps that they can take to protect their networks. I agree that there might well be a case for such institutions to be subject to a different threshold than other subscribers. It would be rather silly-it would not make sense for anyone-if a big hotel faced the same threshold as an individual before being added to an infringement list.
	I said on Second Reading that we would not approve any code that did not take full account of the needs of such subscribers. I repeat that now, and I think that it is the reassurance that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said that the Government gave in another place. No amendment is needed to give effect to that. The code will require the consent of the Secretary of State, and I am happy to confirm again that we would not give consent to any code that did not properly take account of the position of libraries and educational establishments.

Austin Mitchell: There is a type of case that is not covered by the Minister's reassurance. Somebody might park outside my house with a laptop, access my signal and abuse it without my knowledge. What would happen if such an abuse occurred and it could be traced back to me?

Stephen Timms: In such a case, my hon. Friend might receive a letter in due course informing him that an infringement had occurred on his internet access. He would then have the opportunity to protect that access.

Austin Mitchell: How?

Stephen Timms: My hon. Friend could introduce a password so that somebody driving up outside his house would not be able to use his access. The letters that are sent out will have to give such advice and explain what people can do.
	There are a number of things that libraries and others can do to prevent infringers from using their connection. For example, they can apply controls so that particular file-sharing sites with unlawful content are blocked at the subscriber level, which would be more difficult for an ISP to do more generally. Alternatively, they can block particular protocols or limit the bandwidth available so that file sharing on such connections is unrealistic. Such measures would allow libraries to prevent widespread infringement, but would still permit people to enjoy good online access.
	I hope that I have provided some reassurance to hon. Members and that the amendments will not be pressed to a Division.

Don Foster: In light of the Minister's assurances, and because I am conscious of the time available, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	 Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7
	  
	Initial obligations code by OFCOM in the absence of an approved code

Don Foster: I beg to move amendment 12, page 9, line 35, leave out 'six' and insert 'nine'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 13, page 9, line 36, leave out from 'force' to end of line 38.

Don Foster: I refer the Committee to the comments that I made a few moments ago regarding my concern about the time scale, which was why I tabled the amendments. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Stephen Timms: Taking my cue from the hon. Gentleman, I refer him to the remarks that I made a few moments ago, which I hope he found reassuring.

Don Foster: In the light of that reassurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	 Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8
	  
	Contents of initial obligations code

Stephen Timms: I beg to move amendment 2, page 11, line 23, leave out from 'transparent' to end of line 26.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: clause 18 stand part.
	Government new clause 1- Power to make provision about injunctions preventing access to locations on the internet.
	Government new clause 2- Consultation and Parliamentary scrutiny .

Stephen Timms: We want to remove clause 18, the text of which was inserted in another place on a joint initiative of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. New clauses 1 and 2 contain amended provisions, and I hope I can persuade the Committee that our approach is the right way to proceed.
	We have set out why we did not think that the clause 18, which was inserted by the other place, would work and our concerns about introducing such provisions in such a way and at such a time. We have also set out why we think the text in new clauses 1 and 2 would have the same benefits, but ensure proper consideration, including full consultation and proper safeguards. The key benefits of the amended approach are that, as a power to introduce regulations, which is what we are providing for, it is enforceable; it does not immediately fall foul of the technical standards directive, as the existing text would.
	There will be proper opportunities to consult on the measure and for Parliament to consider it via the now famous super-affirmative procedure, with any recommendations having to be taken into account. The Secretary of State must consider the proportionality of the regulations and the evidence that they are necessary to deal with infringement that is having a serious adverse effect. We can also ensure that any security law enforcement concerns are properly taken on board.
	In addition, should such regulations be introduced, the court from which an order was being sought would need to consider carefully legitimate uses and users affected by any order, as well as have due regard to freedom of expression. We certainly do not want the clause to be used to restrict freedom of speech. We want to ensure that the safeguards are properly considered and that ISPs do not have an incentive to block sites purely on the basis of an allegation, for fear of bearing costs-although we also need to ensure that ISPs are not allowed to flout a decision of the court. Essentially, our view is that the costs should be borne, not by the ISPs, but by those seeking a court order.
	The new clause we propose does the job of dealing with online infringement other than unlawful file sharing, which is dealt with by earlier parts of the Bill, but adds safeguards to ensure that the position of internet intermediaries and citizens are properly protected. On that basis, I commend the amendments.

Don Foster: On Second Reading, I acknowledged that two thirds of current illegal activity on the internet, which is costing our creative industries dear, comes from illegal peer-to-peer file sharing, but the other third comes largely from persons downloading material from illegal websites, often hosted in Russia and that part of the world. Clearly, that is wrong and action is needed.
	Having got rid of the all-embracing clause 17 in the original Bill, which gave the Secretary of State unfettered powers, my colleagues in another place thought it appropriate to table an amendment to deal with the problem of illegal websites. However, we did so in the certain knowledge at that time that we would not have got it all right and that it was likely to be the subject of extensive debate in this House. As I freely acknowledged last night and I repeat now, there is considerable concern in the community about that amendment; however, there is also widespread concern about the new clause now proposed, which has many faults.
	First, the new clause penalises sites that facilitate access, or that are
	used for or in connection with an activity that infringes copyright.
	That is too wide ranging and even puts sites such as Google at risk. Injunctions can be used against sites that are not only making such material available in the present, but that have done so in the past and that are likely to. That is hardly a good basis for the principle of innocent till proved guilty.
	There is not enough indication that the rights holders must take reasonable steps to notify the site owner before seeking an injunction. The proposed injunctions are indefinite, which is inappropriate, and the injunctions would, it appears, not cover all service providers. Infringing customers could therefore simply move from one provider to another, as the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Derek Wyatt) said earlier. There are many faults in new clause 1. For the reasons that I have given, and because of the House's total lack of ability to scrutinise the proposals in detail, we will vote against amendment 2.

Adam Afriyie: To be absolutely clear, in the other place, the Liberal Democrats proposed an amendment to the Bill, and argued vehemently in favour of it. Here in the House of Commons, they are now arguing against it. Am I right in understanding that to be the situation?

Don Foster: Of course the hon. Gentleman understands the situation absolutely correctly; he was present in the House on Second Reading when I made it perfectly clear. However, a person who has significant problems drawn to their attention is foolish if they do not take any notice of them, particularly in circumstances where, because of the Government's failure to provide adequate time, there has been no proper detailed consultation. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is willing to accept new clause 1.

Adam Afriyie: That was the most elegant of U-turns; it was beautifully put. It highlights the point that we have detailed and onerous decisions to make. I simply point out that the Bill has been incompetently rushed through the House of Commons, and many of the measures will need to be revisited at a future date.

Stephen Timms: Let me just remind the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) that what we are doing is taking powers to make regulations. The issues that he has raised can, will and should be fully scrutinised through the super-affirmative procedure when the regulations are drawn up.

Question put, That the amendment be made.
	 The Committee divided: Ayes 197, Noes 40.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Amendment 2 agreed to.
	 More than two hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings in the Committee, the proceedings were interrupted (Order, this day).
	 The Chair put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83D).
	 Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	 Clauses 9 and 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11
	  
	Obligations to limit internet access

Amendments made: 44, page 15, line 25, after 'unless' insert-
	'(a) the Secretary of State has complied with subsections (6) to (10), and
	(b)'.
	Amendment 45, page 15, line 27, at end insert-
	'(6) If the Secretary of State proposes to make an order under this section, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a document that-
	(a) explains the proposal, and
	(b) sets it out in the form of a draft order.
	(7) During the period of 60 days beginning with the day on which the document was laid under subsection (6) (the 60-day period), the Secretary of State may not lay before Parliament a draft order to give effect to the proposal (with or without modifications).
	(8) In preparing a draft order under this section to give effect to the proposal, the Secretary of State must have regard to any of the following that are made with regard to the draft order during the 60-day period-
	(a) any representations, and
	(b) any recommendations of a committee of either House of Parliament charged with reporting on the draft order.
	(9) When laying before Parliament a draft order to give effect to the proposal (with or without modifications), the Secretary of State must also lay a document that explains any changes made to the proposal contained in the document laid before Parliament under subsection (6).
	(10) In calculating the 60-day period, no account is to be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which either House is adjourned for more than 4 days.'- (Mr. Timms.)
	 Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	 Clauses 12 to 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15
	  
	Enforcement of obligations

Amendment made: 3, page 19, line 42, after 'provider' insert 'or owner'.- (Mr. Timms.)
	 Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	 Clauses 16 and 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	 Clause 18 disagreed to.
	 Clauses 19 to 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	 Clause 29 disagreed to.
	 Clauses 30 to 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	 Clause 43 disagreed to.
	 Clauses 44 to 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 49
	  
	Commencement

Amendment made: 7, page 59, line 44, at end insert
	'and the entry in Schedule 3 relating to the Public Lending Right Act 1979 (and section 47 so far as it relates to that entry)'.- (Mr. Timms.)
	 Clause 49, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 50
	  
	Short title

Amendment made: 8, page 60, line 3, leave out subsection (2).
	 Clause 50, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	 Schedule 1 agreed to.
	 Schedule 2 disagreed to.
	 Schedule 3 agreed to.

New Clause 1
	  
	Power to make provision about injunctions preventing access to locations on the internet

'(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the granting by a court of a blocking injunction in respect of a location on the internet which the court is satisfied has been, is being or is likely to be used for or in connection with an activity that infringes copyright.
	(2) Blocking injunction means an injunction that requires a service provider to prevent its service being used to gain access to the location.
	(3) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under this section unless satisfied that-
	(a) the use of the internet for activities that infringe copyright is having a serious adverse effect on businesses or consumers,
	(b) making the regulations is a proportionate way to address that effect, and
	(c) making the regulations would not prejudice national security or the prevention or detection of crime.
	(4) The regulations must provide that a court may not grant an injunction unless satisfied that the location is-
	(a) a location from which a substantial amount of material has been, is being or is likely to be obtained in infringement of copyright,
	(b) a location at which a substantial amount of material has been, is being or is likely to be made available in infringement of copyright, or
	(c) a location which has been, is being or is likely to be used to facilitate access to a location within paragraph (a) or (b).
	(5) The regulations must provide that, in determining whether to grant an injunction, the court must take account of-
	(a) any evidence presented of steps taken by the service provider, or by an operator of the location, to prevent infringement of copyright in the qualifying material,
	(b) any evidence presented of steps taken by the copyright owner, or by a licensee of copyright in the qualifying material, to facilitate lawful access to the qualifying material,
	(c) any representations made by a Minister of the Crown,
	(d) whether the injunction would be likely to have a disproportionate effect on any person's legitimate interests, and
	(e) the importance of freedom of expression.
	(6) The regulations must provide that a court may not grant an injunction unless notice of the application for the injunction has been given, in such form and by such means as is specified in the regulations, to-
	(a) the service provider, and
	(b) operators of the location.
	(7) The regulations may, in particular-
	(a) make provision about when a location is, or is not, to be treated as being used to facilitate access to another location,
	(b) provide that notice of an application for an injunction may be given to operators of a location by being published in accordance with the regulations,
	(c) provide that a court may not make an order for costs against the service provider,
	(d) make different provision for different purposes, and
	(e) make incidental, supplementary, consequential, transitional, transitory or saving provision.
	(8) The regulations may-
	(a) modify Chapter 6 of Part 1 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, and
	(b) make consequential provision modifying Acts and subordinate legislation.
	(9) Regulations under this section may not include provision in respect of proceedings before a court in England and Wales without the consent of the Lord Chancellor.
	(10) Regulations under this section must be made by statutory instrument.
	(11) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless-
	(a) the Secretary of State has complied with section [Consultation and Parliamentary scrutiny], and
	(b) a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
	(12) In this section-
	copyright owner has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988;
	Minister of the Crown has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975;
	modify includes amend, repeal or revoke;
	operator, in relation to a location on the internet, means a person who has editorial control over material available at the location;
	qualifying material, in relation to an injunction, means the material taken into account by the court for the purposes of provision made under subsection (4);
	service provider has the same meaning as in section 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988;
	subordinate legislation has the same meaning as in the Interpretation Act 1978.
	(13) In the application of this section to Scotland-
	costs means expenses;
	injunction means interdict.'.- (Mr. Timms.)
	 Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2
	  
	Consultation and Parliamentary scrutiny

'(1) Before making regulations under section [Power to make provision about injunctions preventing access to locations on the internet] the Secretary of State must consult-
	(a) the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland,
	(b) the persons that the Secretary of State thinks likely to be affected by the regulations (or persons who represent such persons), and
	(c) such other persons as the Secretary of State thinks fit.
	(2) If, following the consultation under subsection (1), the Secretary of State proposes to make regulations under section [Power to make provision about injunctions preventing access to locations on the internet], the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a document that-
	(a) explains the proposal and sets it out in the form of draft regulations,
	(b) explains the reasons why the Secretary of State is satisfied in relation to the matters listed in section [Power to make provision about injunctions preventing access to locations on the internet](3)(a) to (c), and
	(c) contains a summary of any representations made during the consultation under subsection (1).
	(3) During the period of 60 days beginning with the day on which the document was laid under subsection (2) (the 60-day period), the Secretary of State may not lay before Parliament a draft statutory instrument containing regulations to give effect to the proposal (with or without modifications).
	(4) In preparing draft regulations under section [Power to make provision about injunctions preventing access to locations on the internet] to give effect to the proposal, the Secretary of State must have regard to any of the following that are made with regard to the draft regulations during the 60-day period-
	(a) any representations, and
	(b) any recommendations of a committee of either House of Parliament charged with reporting on the draft regulations.
	(5) When laying before Parliament a draft statutory instrument containing regulations to give effect to the proposal (with or without modifications), the Secretary of State must also lay a document that explains any changes made to the proposal contained in the document laid before Parliament under subsection (2).
	(6) In calculating the 60-day period, no account is to be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which either House is adjourned for more than 4 days.'.- (Mr. Timms.)
	 Brought up, and added to the Bill.
	Title
	 Amendment made: 10, line 2, leave out from 'copyright' to 'to' in line 3 and insert
	'and about penalties for infringement of copyright and performers' rights'.- (Mr. Timms.)
	 The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
	 Bill, as amended, reported .
	 Bill, as amended in the Committee, considered.
	 Question put forthwith (Order, this day), That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	 The House divided: Ayes 189, Noes 47.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Bill read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

PETITION
	  
	Christian Values

Alan Beith: I have the privilege of presenting a petition on Christian values from listeners to Premier Christian Radio, which declares that 20,000 Christians have stated that they intend to vote in the forthcoming election in line with Christian values, and that the petitioners believe that business as usual has damaged the credibility of Parliament and is unacceptable. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons take all steps necessary to restore the credibility of Parliament. The petition, in the name of Mr. Peter Kerridge and Mr. Colin Baynes, is supported by many thousands of forms signed by Premier Christian Radio listeners. In presenting this challenge to both Parliament and candidates in all parties, I believe that the signatories are following the biblical prophetic tradition of calling on those in authority to promote righteousness and to overcome corruption and injustice. The petitioners are citizens of a United Kingdom that I believe is at its best when it combines freedom of religion, for which our forefathers fought, with an acknowledgement of and respect for long-established Christian values-values that are widely shared and respected by people of other faiths and those of no faith. I am pleased to present this petition to the House.
	 Following is the full text of the petition:
	 [The Petition of Premier Christian Radio and others,
	 Declares that 20,000 Christians have stated, in a campaign organised by Premier Christian Radio, that they intend to vote in the forthcoming election in line with Christian values; and that the Petitioners believe that business as usual has damaged the credibility of Parliament and is unacceptable.
	 The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons take all steps necessary to restore the credibility of Parliament.
	 And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
	[P000821]

Members of Parliament

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. -(Mr. Blizzard.)

Mark Todd: In my speech on the proposed reforms of House procedures, I referred to my disappointment that the Committee that sponsored those changes had not been asked to consider the role of MPs-and nor had it sought to be asked to do so. I then touched on my family experience-my grandfather was a Member in the 1930s-and my understanding of the traditionally understood role of an MP as defined by Edmund Burke, famously, if patronisingly, in his address to the electors of Bristol. I noted how far we had travelled from that model, and how little we had either consulted the public on those changes or discussed their broader impact. That is what I shall attempt to do this evening.
	First, what are the understood functions of a Member? In Churchill's definition, published in the 1950s, the role was threefold, and in order of priority. I have edited it to remove the explicit sexism from his text. He said that the roles of a Member were: to exercise judgment in the interests of Great Britain; to act as a representative, but not a delegate, of his or her constituents; and to serve his or her party's interests.
	The Select Committee on Modernisation's report on the role of Back-Bench Members, published in 2007, set out the following functions. Unlike Churchill's, they are not in priority order. They were: supporting their party in votes in Parliament; representing and furthering the interests of their constituency; representing individual constituents and taking up their problems and grievances; scrutinising and holding the Government to account and monitoring, stimulating and challenging the Executive; initiating, reviewing and amending legislation; and contributing to the development of policy, whether in the Chamber, Committees or party structures, and promoting public understanding of party policy.
	An MP serving between 1935 and 1950 said that,
	before 1939, unless there was some controversy afoot, I rarely received more than twenty letters a week...But after the election of 1945, everything was changed...suddenly the MP ceased to be a politician and potential statesman and became an official of the welfare state. Thousands wanted houses; old people wanted pensions; ex-service men wanted jobs; everybody wanted something and 'write to your MP' became a cliché.
	Patricia Hollis's excellent biography of Jennie Lee attributes her defeat in the 1970 election to infrequent visits, inattention to constituency business, and an unwillingness to attend constituency functions, which steadily undermined her vote in what appeared to be a relatively safe Labour constituency. The process of change in the expectations of MPs and in their performance was uneven.
	Even in the early 1970s, one MP-I do not believe that he was from my party-could sketch his parliamentary activity thus:
	I hunt three days a week, always. Probably hunt four days a week. I don't get any letters anyhow. I only have a secretary part-time. I have one woman at home, who deals with Parliamentary letters on a Monday and that's it.
	That quote also puts into context any suggestion of some golden age of disinterested service among tribunes of the people. We often hear favourable comparisons of past times in Parliament with the performance of parliamentarians now, but I have always thought them to be fantasy. That sort of quotation bears out the fact that some of the what was going on at that time was pretty inactive in many senses and rather little aligned to the public good.
	There have been a number of analyses of how a modern MP spends their time. A sample of the 2005 intake showed an average of 49 per cent. of MPs' time spent on constituency work, however that might be defined. In my own case, the proportion would certainly be greater than that. All recent analyses have shown constituency work to be by far the dominant part of the MP's job.
	From the model set out by Churchill in the 1950s, going further back to my grandfather's time, as remembered by my father who recalls him as an MP at a time when the constituency workload was light and the quantity of correspondence was small, how has the change to the present situation come about? The first quotation that I gave hints at one reason-the burgeoning role of the state.
	As the state extends its reach, the role of an MP is the most obvious contact point with the state apparatus, so it gets extended, too. Setting aside the merits of extensive state provision, there have been some unhealthy aspects of the relationship between MPs' casework and state services. I cannot be alone in having heard citizens report to me that public servants have told them to contact their MPs if they have complaints. Having noted the higher quality response service offered to MPs-on tax credits and Child Support Agency cases, for example-constituents are motivated to use an MP rather than the official complaints process, which must be extremely hard. MPs have almost assumed the role of self-interested-I shall come back to this-quality control in some services, removing the incentive to get services right first time.
	The fall of Jennie Lee and the experience of Members in all but the safest seats hints at another reason for the change. Assiduous constituency service appears to be rewarded at the ballot box. With modern office systems, casework also provides databases of contact for future reference-potential building blocks of additional support in votes.
	A third reason is the combination of modern technology and the use of constituency mail by campaigning groups. Postcards and e-mails urging MPs to sign early-day motions, write to Ministers and take other actions now proliferate, built on the knowledge-again taken from surveys-that MPs look hardest at material sent to them by constituents.
	What have been the consequences of these changes? I have mentioned one already-the design of some state provision around the assumption of an MP advocacy role. We have MP helplines and MP correspondence units, specifically to deal with the assumed level of complaints that MPs will have to handle from their constituents.
	Secondly, unless MPs are very discriminating indeed-I shall explain why that is hard to be-they intrude on the competences of other representatives. Concerns about planning, housing, education and many other services offered by local councils really lie within the responsibility of a councillor. Many electors, however, feel that contacting an MP-going to the top, as has been said to me on many occasions-is more effective and that if I should pass a matter to a councillor, I am passing the buck on the complaint that has been raised. I see you nodding, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I say this, and I would be surprised if most constituency MPs had not had similar experiences.
	In addition, local political competition may dissuade MPs from passing casework to a councillor from an opposing party. As I have said, simply building on the database of contacts one has from electors on whatever subject provides a strong incentive to pursue a complaint, whether it is relevant to the responsibilities of an MP or not.
	We may also find that Members of Parliament are ill equipped for such purposes. I am not a lawyer, yet I regularly receive queries in regard to which some legal knowledge is at least desirable. I am not a financial adviser, yet I have often received queries about pensions. I am not a benefits specialist, yet I frequently receive queries about benefit entitlement. If the compass of an MP's role is so wide, MPs need appropriate resources in order to address at least the common concerns. Given the scale of their casework-in a typical year, I deal with well over 2,000 new cases-offering a quality service is a challenge. I emphasise the word quality, because I am not talking about a simple acknowledgement or routine correspondence. Adding genuine value by saying something of substance is quite difficult.
	It seems certain that the increase in constituency work, willingly undertaken by Members, will compress the attention given to their other functions. Critical parts of the role of the House of Commons are already poorly fulfilled. For instance, the scrutiny of huge volumes of European legislation is manfully tackled by a very small resource. It is arguable that the House transferred detailed scrutiny of legislation to the House of Lords far too readily, and the Finance Bill-with which I have dealt in the House on several occasions-suffers particularly when that cover from the Lords is unavailable. While Select Committee work remains a largely quality process of scrutiny and policy contribution, much of Question Time on the Floor of the House is a formulaic mix of partisan work and constituency name-checking.
	I have always regarded constituency work as both a good in itself, providing a service that is clearly demanded, and a resource. There is not a complete division between a Member's constituency role and his or her parliamentary work. I regularly say that if I do not learn something new through my constituency correspondence almost every day, I cannot be doing my job. The sheer variety of subjects raised forces one to learn., and it often prompts parliamentary activity.
	I have also always regarded correspondence that I receive as personal. If someone takes the trouble to write to me, at the very least I should look at the letter and give some direction on the response, if I cannot reply myself. Until recently, I replied to most letters personally, and that personal link remains an important anchor in the job, connecting Members to local realities and broadening their knowledge.
	You will sense, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am not suggesting that the shift in emphasis is wrong. It serves a need, and it delivers a wider value. However, it has taken place silently, gradually and patchily, without strategy and without any genuine engagement with citizens on what they want from MPs. Results of surveys suggest that about half of them believe that MPs should represent the views of local people, but do they mean that in the sense in which Burke tried to define the relationship? I rather think not. And how is it possible to determine what those views really are? They are, of course, diverse, and it is difficult to weigh them against each other in terms of volume and quality.
	Nearly the same proportion of citizens suggest that an MP should represent a national interest. Setting aside how that might be defined, we must ask whether there is a conflict between the two goals, the serving of local interests and local concerns and the national interest. In some circumstances, there is.
	I hope that when the House reassembles after the election, it will seek to establish the purposes of an MP through a process of public engagement. Once we have that foundation, we can better define the resources that are required, the procedures and business balance of this place, the skills that are desirable, the relationship with the other parts of our country's governance, and even, I have to say-because it forms part of the programme of one party at the election-the broad number of MPs that there should be. To cut the number without any intellectual apparatus relating to justification of the role of an MP is frankly lazy and facile.

Barbara Follett: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) on securing this debate, which will be one of the last of this Parliament. It will be the last time that we three shall stand here together, Madam Deputy Speaker. Like you and I, my hon. Friend came into this place in 1997, and in the next few days we shall all leave it.
	My hon. Friend has been a committed and assiduous Member of Parliament since his arrival here 13 years ago. I know, from many long nights in this place talking to him, how passionately hard he has worked for his constituents. During his time here he has held a number of posts, including Parliamentary Private Secretary to Baroness Symons when she was Deputy Leader of the Lords and when she was in the Foreign Office and the Department of Trade and Industry. He has also served on a number of Select Committees and is currently a member of the Treasury Committee.
	Tonight my hon. Friend has spoken thoughtfully, knowledgeably and, occasionally, amusingly about the changing role of a Member of Parliament in the 21st century. As he so rightly emphasised, this is a growing role and one that is increasingly scrutinised by organisations such as TheyWorkForYou.com, which is mainly based on the internet. They scrutinise aspects of the role that not everyone would consider to be as important as they do.
	I agree with my hon. Friend that establishing the purposes of an MP and then deciding the resources, procedure and business balance would be enormously helpful. I well remember my first few days in this place and how overwhelming the role suddenly seemed. As he said, the role broadly has three different responsibilities: holding the Executive to account through membership of Select Committees and through questions; participating in deliberation on legislation; and representing constituents in Parliament. As he so rightly emphasised, the latter has become far and away the larger part of one's job.
	Hon. Members will know that my husband is a writer. He has recently been writing about Members of Parliament in the 1920s and has been constantly interrupting my work and his to tell me how little they did. He described how many books they managed to read, how much hunting they managed to do and how much time they managed to spend with their families. Things have changed from the days when Members of Parliament would visit their constituencies only once a year and be greeted at the station with flags and celebrations by their constituents. Members now live in their constituencies; most of us spend the majority of our week and of our summer in them. We live in our constituencies because we want to know those constituencies so that we can better represent them. That is a good development, but it also means that the balance of our work here has changed. I passionately believe that the work of a Member of Parliament is extremely important and that before we make decisions about the number of people we have in this place and the way we work, we need to discuss it in a way that we have so far failed to do. The Government have taken the role of the Member of Parliament seriously and the Modernisation Committee has considered some aspects of it, but it has never held an investigation into that specific subject.
	The work of Members of Parliament has been the subject of much public attention during the past year. That can only increase in the run-up to the general election. One of the things that the Modernisation Committee has done-it did it when I was a member-has been to engage the public more in the work of the House. The launch of the new website last year improved public accessibility to information about the functions of MPs and Parliament. As my hon. Friend rightly said, those functions are not clear and not everyone does the same thing, so there is no real yardstick against which people can measure the work of their Member of Parliament compared with that of others.
	The Select Committee on Reform of the House of Commons' recent report recommended ways in which Parliament could better interact with the public. The Government accepted these recommendations and are committed to engaging the public in the work of Parliament. On 22 February, the House agreed that consideration should be given to a new system whereby petitions from the public could trigger a debate in the House. The House also agreed that during the next Parliament there would be a trial of debates on petitions in Westminster Hall.
	Members play the crucial role of holding Ministers to account over their proposals to amend or make law. The close and detailed scrutiny of Bills and delegated legislation is invaluable. As my hon. Friend rightly said, the volume of this legislation-in particular the legislation coming in from Europe-needs to be considered. We do not need to be overwhelmed by it, but we must ensure that we have both the time and the resources to cope with it.
	The introduction of pre-legislative scrutiny has also added to work loads. However, it has made a lot of legislation a great deal better and I welcome it. I welcome the fact that four out of five draft Bills that received pre-legislative scrutiny in the 2008-09 Session were introduced.
	There are also private Members' Bills, which in some cases allow Members to bring their own policies into law. I know that my hon. Friend has had success with his own private Member's Bill, which became the Co-operatives and Community Benefit Societies Act 2003. That Act has protected charities, housing associations and clubs from asset strippers and it is something of which both this House and he should be proud.
	Members of Parliament are also responsible for holding the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues to account. That is done daily through written and oral parliamentary questions. As a Minister, I know how important they are in my work load and how much time and thought go into their setting and their answering. The same is true of the departmental Select Committees.
	Over the past 13 years, the increasing work load and increasing number of subjects to be discussed has led to the establishment of Westminster Hall as a parallel Chamber. That has given hon. Members more opportunities to raise and debate issues of regional significance. The appointment of Regional Ministers-I have the honour of being the Minister for the East of England-and of Regional Select Committees has certainly added to the Government's accountability across the United Kingdom and brought the regions, Whitehall and Westminster closer together.
	Given all that has been said tonight, the theory and practice of the role of Members of Parliament has grown. In the past 13 years, my hon. Friend has been exemplary in his service to the House and to his constituents. I know that, as we leave this House, many of us are thinking of ways it could have been made better in those 13 years. I personally regret that we did not manage to address the hours of the House sufficiently to make it an attractive place for younger people with families and other commitments. I hope that that will be considered in future, alongside the role of MPs, because in order to do his or her job well, an MP must, by necessity, have a well-rounded family and personal life.
	It has been a privilege to serve alongside my hon. Friend, and with you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish you well in the future, and, on behalf of the Government, I thank my hon. Friend for his work.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.

Deferred Division

Children and young persons

That the draft Children Act 2004 Information Database (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2010, which were laid before this House on 28 January, be approved.
	 The House divided: Ayes 259, Noes 152.

Question accordingly agreed to.

strategy on jobs and growth

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 7110/10, Commission Communication on Europe 2020-a strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, No. 6018/10, Commission staff working document on Europe 2020-public consultation-first overview of responses, and No. 6037/10, Commission staff working document-Lisbon Strategy evaluation document; and supports the Government's approach to promoting an EU strategy focused on delivering strong, sustainable and balanced growth.
	 The House divided: Ayes 254, Noes 158.

Question accordingly agreed to.